tihrary  of  Che  t:heolo;gical  ^tmimvy 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 
PRESENTED  BY 

The  Estate  of 
Philip  H.  Waddell  Smith 


BV  1558  .C55 

Christy,  George  H.  1837- 

1909. 
Sunday  morning  talks 


c 


\  \ 


L^oJl  C-^yystZ 


y 


Sunday  Morning  Talks 

Prepared  for 

Bible  Class  No.  20 

of  the 

Presbyterian  Congregation 

of 

Sewickley,  Pennsylvania 

By 
George  H.   Christy 


Ubc  iknlcfterbocfter  press 

New  York 

1912 


Copyright,  1912 

BY 

SARAH  H.  CHRISTY 


tSbe  Kniclierboclter  |>re00.  mew  IBocfc 


FOREWORD 

The  following  lessons  were  prepared  by  my 
husband  some  time  before  his  death,  with  the 
intention  of  publishing  them.  But  for  reasons 
that  seemed  good  to  himself  this  was  not  done 
during  his  lifetime. 

I  now  print  them  and  send  them  to  the  mem- 
bers of  Bible  Class  No.  20,  and  to  other  friends  of 
my  husband  who  valued  the  results  of  his  study, 
as  a  memorial  of  one  who  truly  ''opened  up  the 
Scriptures  "  for  others. 

May  these  pages  bring  him  again  before  us, 
refresh  in  our  minds  his  long  and  earnest  labors  in 
the  faith  that  he  so  firmly  held,  and  incline  us  all 
more  faithfully  to  heed  his  teachings.  May  we 
follow  him  in  so  far  as  he  followed  "the  Master" 
whom  he  loved  and  served. 

S.  H.  C. 


INTRODUCTORY 

It  is  not  a  mere  platitude  nor  a  glittering 
generality  to  vsay  that  no  book  in  the  world  wiU 
better  repay  careful,  continuous,  and  devout 
study  than  the  Bible.  This  is  as  true  as  that  two 
and  two  make  four. 

No  book  was  ever  pubHshed  before  or  since, 
which  gives  or  contains  any  one  of  the  following 
specifications : 

1.  More  original  and  authentic  history. 

2.  As  many  and  as  truthful  biographies  of  the 
men  (and  women  too)  who  have  made  history. 

3.  As  much  original  information  concerning 
the  beginnings  of  things. 

4.  An  equal  delineation  of  the  origin  and 
growth  of  nations  and  civilization. 

5.  A  larger  or  finer  collection  of  the  folk-lore 
of  a  remote  antiquity. 

6.  As  much  clean,  pure,  and  elegant  prose 
literature. 

7.  An  equal  amount  and  variety  of  highly 
sublime  poetry — dramatic,  epic,  and  lyric,  includ- 
ing a  wide  range  of  old  songs  and  ballads. 

8.  A  better  system  of  law. 

9.  A  better  code  of  morals. 


vi  Introductory 


10.  More  incentives  to  clean  thoughts,  honest 
lives,  and  upright  business  dealings. 

11.  A  better  exposition  of  the  equal  rights  of 
all  men. 

12.  A  better  system  of  religion. 

13.  A  better  plan  by  which  to  make  saints  out 
of  sinners,  and  good  citizens  out  of  all  men. 

14.  A  better  knowledge  of  eternal  life  and  how 
to  attain  it. 

15.  A  better  scheme  for  the  regeneration  of 
the  world  and  the  redemption  of  humanity. 

16.  More  original  research  that  would  with- 
stand reasonable,  intelligent,  and  scholarly  critic- 
ism. 

While  the  Bible  is  not,  and  does  not  profess  to  be, 
a  scientific  book,  its  science  is  quite  as  correct  as 
much  that  was  taught  in  the  schools  of  Christen- 
dom when  the  writer  was  a  boy,  and  perhaps  as 
correct  as  a  good  deal  that  is  taught  yet. 

But  the  Bible  has  its  defects;  namely:  (i)  It 
says  very  little  about  theology;  (2)  less  about 
church  organization  and  government;  (3)  less  yet 
about  church  ritual  and  forms  of  worship;  (4) 
still  less  about  creeds.  Probably  the  writers  of 
the  Bible  did  not  regard  these  as  matters  of  much 
importance. 


CONTENTS 

Jesus  of  Nazareth,  I     . 

,        , 

PAGE 

I 

Jesus  OF  Nazareth,  II  . 

. 

15 

The  Writings  of  Paul 

. 

28 

Paul's  Gospel 

• 

45 

A  Japhetic  Gospel 

• 

59 

Paul  and  the  Empire  . 

. 

69 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  I 

. 

80 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  II 

• 

95 

John's  Gospel 

• 

116 

Peter 

. 

130 

The   Resurrection;    The 
Messianic  Prophecy 

Future 

State; 

■     143 

Protestantism 

. 

. 

.     157 

Lost  Beliefs 

• 

. 

.     173 

Revelation. 

. 

. 

.     190 

A  Future  Life     . 

, 

, 

.     215 

viii                          Contents 

PAGE 

Satan           

.          231 

Sin 

.         240 

Three  Ancient  Traditions  . 

.          247 

Some  Penalties  and  a  Promise     . 

.          262 

The  Story  of  the  Creation 

.         269 

Biblical  Revision 

.          278 

Index           

.          289 

Sunday  Morning  Talks 


Sunday  Morning  Talks 


JESUS  OF  NAZARETH 
I 

The  divinity  of  our  Saviour  is  a  subject  I  would 
not  undertake  to  discuss.  I  accept  it  as  a  matter 
of  faith,  and  accordingly  believe  it,  but  I  do  not 
understand  it.  How  it  could  be  ''manifested  in 
the  flesh,"  was  a  "great  mystery"  even  to  a  man 
of  the  giant  intellect  and  high  spirituality  of  Paul 
(I.  Tim.  iii.,  i6).  He  made  no  effort  to  explain  it. 
Neither  does  John  who  simply  records  it  as  a 
fact  (John  i.,  14).  What  neither  Paul  nor  John 
could  explain,  the  rest  of  us  may  as  well  pass  by. 

But  I  think  I  can,  at  least  in  a  feeble  sort  of  way, 
understand  His  human  side  or  element:  what  He 
was  as  a  man  among  men ;  living  and  talking  with 
them  in  daily  unrestrained  intercourse;  healing 
their  sick  whenever  opportunity  offered ;  sympathiz- 
ing in  their  troubles;  feeding  them  when  out  of 
reach  of  a  normal  suppty  of  food ;  undergoing  their 
privations;  poor  in  purse  as  the  poorest  of  them, 


Jesus  of  Nazareth 


more  homeless  than  any  of  them;  friendless  Him- 
self except  as  He  made  friends — and  these, 
gathered  from  the  poor  and  the  illiterate,  were 
largely  composed  of  the  outcasts  of  society,  the 
publicans  of  one  sex  and  the  harlots  of  the  other; 
and  all  considered  as  unfit  to  be  numbered  with 
himianity  (John  vii.,  49) — hated,  reviled,  and 
hounded  to  death  by  the  orthodox  clergy  of  the 
church  of  which  He  was  a  sincere  and  consistent 
member,  even  while  He  was  teaching  by  word  and 
illustrating  in  His  life  a  holy  and  perfect  standard 
of  living  and  doing;  and  finally  put  to  death  at 
their  instance  on  a  criminal  charge  which  they 
knew  to  be  false,  and,  as  his  sole  reward,  meeting 
death  in  its  most  painful  and  ignominious  form. 
I  think  I  can,  at  least  partially,  understand  a  life 
of  that  kind.  To  a  limited  extent,  I  can  also 
tmderstand  His  resurrection.  To  my  apprehen- 
sion, the  restoration  of  life  is  no  more  of  a  mystery 
than  its  original  beginning — in  fact,  less  of  a 
mystery  under  our  present  system  of  psychology, 
which,  however,  may  be  all  wrong.  The  number 
and  amount  of  the  things  that  we  think  we  know 
but  do  not  know  cannot  be  reckoned. 

Though  bom  of  royal  blood,  Jesus-ben- Mary 
was  brought  up  in  comparative  poverty,  and,  so 
far  as  is  known,  with  only  such  a  limited  education 
as  was  then  within  the  reach  of  every  Jewish  boy 
of  the  peasant  class  (verse  15).  The  place  of  His 
reputed  nativity  was  obscure  (John  i.,  46).  His 
home  province,  Galilee,  only  himg  on  the  ragged 


Jesus  of  Nazareth 


edge  of  respectability  (John  vii.,  52);  and  his 
occupation,  while  not  disreputable,  barred  Him 
from  admission  to  the  inner  circle  of  either  social 
or  church  life  (Matt,  xiii.,  55).  Though  it  is 
occasionally  alluded  to,  it  seems  that  no  considera- 
tion was  ever  paid  to  His  royal  descent,  nor  does 
He  ever  speak  of  it  as  constituting  any  support  for 
his  claims.  Up  to  the  age  of  thirty  years,  He  was 
apparently  as  obscure  an  individual — that  is,  in 
respect  of  public  fame  or  notoriety — as  could  have 
been  found  in  the  ranks  of  the  Jewish  peasantry 
"from  Dan  to  Beersheba. "  The  episode  of 
Luke  ii.,  41-51,  had  during  the  intervening  eighteen 
years  evidently  been  forgotten  by  everybody 
except  Himself  and  His  mother,  and  even  she  did 
not  understand  its  significance.  To  the  aged  and 
venerable  rabbis  of  the  temple  He  was  nothing  but 
a  precocious  youth  whom,  in  His  absence,  they 
would  soon  forget,  much  as  the  present  generation 
has  forgotten  the  "Boy  Preacher,"  or  "Blind 
Tom,"  the  musician  of  thirty  years  ago. 

The  news  of  the  great  revival  inaugurated  by 
his  remote  cousin,  John  the  Baptist,  down  in  the 
Jordan  valley,  reached  His  ears  in  the  out-of-the- 
way  village  of  Nazareth.  John's  revival  methods 
corresponded  somewhat  closely  with  those  of  the 
modem  camp-meeting.  Whether  Jesus,  when  He 
joined  the  crowds  that  flocked  to  John's  baptism, 
was  actuated  by  any  other  motives  than  those 
which  dominated  them,  or  by  the  same  motives 
as  lead  modem  believers  to  the  excitements  and 


Jesus  of  Nazareth 


experiences  of  camp-meeting  life,  can  only  be  a 
matter  of  surmise. 

That  John  was  personally  acquainted  with 
Jesus  is  at  least  highly  probable,  if  not  positively 
certain.  John  was  fully  satisfied  of  his  own  in- 
capacity to  carry  on  his  revival  work  to  perfect 
results;  and  he  at  once  announced  Jesus  as  his 
divinely  appointed  successor,  and  as  one  who 
could  do  and  would  do  what  it  was  useless  for  him, 
John,  to  attempt  (Luke  iii. ,  1 6, 1 7) .  By  a  ceremony 
of  his  own,  not  wholly  unknown  in  Judaism,  but 
in  John's  hands  invested  with  a  new  meaning,  he 
called  Jesus  out  of  the  obscurity  which  had  charac- 
terized His  life  as  the  son  of  a  village  carpenter,  and 
ordained  and  consecrated  Him  as  not  only  the 
leader  of  our  sinful  humanity  through  all  the  after 
ages,  but  also  as  the  active  and,  as  we  are  taught 
and  believe,  the  successful  agent  in  its  final  re- 
demption. 

That  Jesus  heard  and  heeded  this  call,  was  no 
more  than  we  should  expect.  The  idea  of  the 
fatherhood  of  God  and  the  sonship  of  His  people, 
though  never  up  to  that  time  made  prominent, 
was  not  entirely  new  to  Jewish  thought  (Ex.  iv., 
22,  23;  Ps.  ii.,  7),  and  this  idea  had  been  appre- 
hended by  Him  in  a  practical  sense  quite  early  in 
life  (Luke  ii.,  49).  But  with  this  call,  and  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  Him  (Luke  iii.,  22), 
there  seems  to  have  been  bom  in  His  inmost 
consciousness  the  apprehension  that  He  was  now 
the  Son  of  God  in  a  sense  never  yet  experienced 


Jesus  of  Nazareth 


by  any  son  of  Adam — and  so  uniquely  and  pre- 
eminently a  Son  of  the  Most  High  that  He  was 
thereby  fitted  and  qualified  to  undertake  and 
accomplish  the  work  which,  though  it  had  then 
been  in  progress  for  some  two  or  three  thousand 
years,  yet  had  produced  comparatively  little 
result — the  work  of  saving  our  lost  humanity 
from  the  results  of  the  fall.  That  He  thought  it 
out  in  this  particular  form,  cannot  of  course  be 
affirmed,  for  He  says  but  little  as  to  His  own  claims. 

Modesty  is  always  a  characteristic  of  genuine 
greatness;  and  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  most 
modest  of  our  race.  Accordingly,  He  rarely 
speaks  of  His  past,  and  we  are  left  to  infer  His 
original  plans  and  purposes  largely  from  His  life 
and  its  results.  Whether  at  His  first  call  He  was 
conscious  of  His  own  Messiahship,  nowhere  ap- 
pears, for  He  makes  no  such  claim  until  near 
the  end  of  His  life.  "My  works,"  He  says, 
"bear  witness  of  me"  (John  x.,  25).  Thus  He 
followed  the  same  rule  that  He  laid  down  for  us: 
"By  their  frmts  ye  shall  known  them"  (Matt. 
vii.,  20). 

But  if  He  was  to  save  the  race,  how  should 
He  acqmre  that  supreme,  or  at  least  dominant, 
control  over  men  which  would  enable  Him  to  do  it? 
It  was  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world  that 
before  answering  this  question,  even  to  Himself, 
He  should  take  a  little  time  in  seclusion,  away  from 
the  haunts  of  men,  to  consider  it  (Mark  i.,  13). 
It  took  Paul  three  years  (Gal.  i.,  17,  18)  and  Moses 


Jesus  of  Nazareth 


forty  years  (Acts  vii.,  30)  to  solve  a  somewhat 
similar  problem.  Should  He  do  it  by  proclaiming 
Himself  the  son  of  David,  by  gathering  an  army, 
by  war  and  conquest,  by  restoring  the  glories  of 
the  old  Davidic  kingdom,  by  dazzling  the  nations 
with  the  wealth  and  magnificence  of  the  court  of 
Solomon  (Luke  iv.,  5-8)? 

Such  a  course  would  have  been  in  strict  accord 
with  Old  Testament  prophecy  as  then  generally 
understood  in  the  higher  circles  of  Judaism,  and 
probably  He  had  been  so  taught  in  His  youth. 
The  scheme  looked  plausible  and  seductive  on  its 
face.  It  would  appeal  strongly  to  the  political 
pride  and  religious  fanaticism  of  the  entire  Jewish 
people,  and  it  seemed  to  have  the  divine  promises 
back  of  it.  But  it  was  promptly  rejected.  The 
race  will  never  be  saved  by  the  gospel  of  force  or 
the  gospel  of  wealth — a  fact  which  it  would  be  well 
for  the  present  generation  to  learn,  and  learn 
thoroughly. 

Or,  should  He  astound,  dazzle,  and  overawe 
the  concourse  of  worshippers  in  the  holy  temple 
by  suddenly  and  unexpectedly  soaring  down  to 
them  as  if  from  heaven,  and  as  if  borne  upon  the 
wings  of  a  host  of  invisible  angels,  and  thus 
demand  recognition  and  acceptance  as  a  messen- 
ger direct  from  the  presence  of  the  great  Jehovah 
their  king  (Luke  iv.,  9,  10)?  The  scriptures 
which  He  and  the  people  alike  believed,  furnished 
ample  authority  for  such  a  course.  But  a  specta- 
cular display  was  then,  and  still  is,  a  poor  basis  for 


Jesus  of  Nazareth 


a  permanent  moral  or  religious  reformation.  This 
plan  also  was  rejected. 

But  if  He  must  pursue  a  course  wherein  e very- 
means  of  violence,  either  offensive  or  defensive, 
was  denied  Him;  a  course  in  which  the  use  of 
personal  wealth  and  luxury  as  moral  and  reforma- 
tory agents  was  prohibited ;  a  career  that  should  be 
marked  by  an  utter  absence  of  those  spectacular 
shows  which  produce  a  feeling  of  awe  and  lead 
captive  the  imagination;  might  He  not  still  use 
His  miraculous  power  at  least  to  supply  His 
necessary  wants,  and  to  strengthen  and  recuperate 
His  exhausted  energies,  while  laboring  assiduously 
in  the  self-den^dng  work  that  lay  before  Him  (Luke 
iv.,  2-4)? 

But  in  that  case,  we  ''miserable  sinners"  would 
have  said:  *'0h,  yes,  it  is  easy  enough  for  Him  to 
be  good;  give  us  the  power  to  work  miracles  to 
satisfy  our  wants  and  relieve  our  sufferings,  and 
we  too,  will  be  good."  The  race  is  not  to  be 
redeemed  in  that  way.  The  author  of  Hebrews 
ii.,  10,  understood  the  point  perfectly. 

But — and  it  must  be  admitted  with  deep  regret 
— the  Holy  Catholic  Church  has  yielded  to  the 
temptations  which  its  great  Leader  thus  resisted 
and  overcame.  The  Christian  nations  of  the 
present  day  deem  it  no  dishonor,  but  rather  the 
reverse,  to  extend  a  Christian  civiHzation  by  the 
barbarities  of  war,  and  also,  by  the  same  means, 
to  open  up  new  avenues  for  the  spread  of  the 
gospel  of  the  Prince  of  Peace.     Gorgeous  cathe- 


Jesus  of  Nazareth 


drals  and  ornate  rituals  are  employed  to  overawe 
the  imagination  and  dazzle  the  senses.  The  best 
of  our  laymen  practise,  and  many  of  them  pubHcly 
advocate,  the  gospel  of  wealth  and  luxury.  We 
all  would  work  miracles  if  we  could,  to  relieve  our 
lazy  bodies  from  the  necessity  of  healthy  labor. 
And,  what  is  perhaps  worse  yet  (Luke  xxiii.,  31), 
the  highest  and  hoHest  of  our  clergy  are  eager  in 
their  violation  of  one  of  the  clearest  of  our  Saviour's 
commands  (Matt,  xxiii.,  7,  8),  so  that  they  may 
be  called  Doctors  (D.D.)  of  a  Divinity  which  few  of 
them  understand,  and  Doctors  (LL.D.)  of  Laws 
which  fewer  yet  know  anything  about  (Luke 
xviii.,  8). 

The  earthly  life  of  oiu*  Saviour,  as  I  understand 
it,  involved  three  great  crises :  first,  the  temptation; 
second,  the  crucifixion ;  and  third,  the  resurrection. 
But  for  the  first  and  its  results,  His  work  would 
have  been  directed  in  wrong  channels,  and  would 
have  resulted  in  practical  failure;  but  for  the 
second,  it  would  not  have  been  completed;  and 
but  for  the  third.  His  claim  to  be  divine  could  not 
have  been  vindicated.  No  man  could  assuredly 
save  the  race  until  it  was  demonstrated  that  he 
possessed  or  carried  with  him  a  power  superior  to 
that  of  agencies  working  for  its  destruction.  When 
this  was  done,  as  it  was  done  b}^  His  resurrection, 
in  that  it  was  a  triumph  over  death,  then  and 
thereby  the  salvation  of  humanity,  though  its 
completion  might  be  distant,  was  at  last  made 
certain. 


Jesus   of  Nazareth 


By  the  results  of  the  temptation,  the  road  was 
marked  out  along  which  He  was  to  travel  in  doing 
His  appointed  work.  It  was  to  Him  a  lonesome 
road,  for  the  homes  thereon  that  made  Him 
genuinely  welcome  were  few  and  far  apart.  One 
was  at  Capernaum  in  Galilee  (Matt,  viii.,  14); 
another  was  at  Bethany,  a  few  miles  from  Jerusa- 
lem (John  xii.,  i).  If  there  were  any  others,  the 
record  does  not  mention  them  (Luke  ix.,  58). 
The  open  and  avowed  friends  He  usually  met  with 
on  that  road  were  not  of  the  kind  that  you  or  I 
would  readily  select  or  highly  prize.  They  were, 
for  the  most  part,  the  social  outcasts  of  Judaism, 
like  publicans  and  harlots ;  the  impure  and  miser- 
able victims  of  vice  and  disease,  such  as  lepers  and 
maniacs;  men  in  the  agonies  of  epilepsy,  or  in  the 
helplessness  of  locomotor  ataxia;  men  that  were 
blind  and  men  that  were  deformed.  Write  a  list 
of  human  diseases — the  diseases  of  vice  as  well  as 
those  of  misfortune — catalogue  their  victims  as 
found  in  Palestine  a.d.  30-33,  and  you  will  include 
nearly  all  those  on  whose  friendship  He  could 
count  during  His  public  ministry.  Only  two  men 
of  rank  in  the  entire  nation  ever  conceived 
for  Him  even  a  friendly  regard,  Nicodemus  the 
rabbi,  and  Joseph  of  Arimathasa,  a  wealthy 
member  of  the  Sanhedrin  (John  xix.,  38,  39). 
But  their  friendship  was  secret,  and  practically 
did  Him  no  good.  He  would  have  been  as  well 
off  without  it. 

With  these  two  exceptions.  He  had  to  face  the 


10  Jesus  of  Nazareth 

active  hostility  of  the  entire  Jewish  hierarchy — a 
hostility  which  was  deep-seated,  implacable,  and 
deadly.  While  Pharisee  and  Sadducee  cordially 
hated  each  other,  they  united  with  equal  cordiality 
in  a  vindictive  hatred  of  Him.  Every  agency 
that  the  leaders  of  the  church  and  the  leaders  of 
society  could  devise  was  put  into  operation  to 
undermine  His  authority  with  the  common  people 
and  destroy  His  influence.  The}^  m.aligned  Him, 
and  His  Mother  also,  by  the  implied  charge  that 
He  was  a  bastard  (John  viii.,  41).  They  caused 
the  report  to  go  out  that  He  was  an  emissary  of 
Beelzebub,  the  supposed  "prince  of  the  devils" 
and  author  of  demoniacal  possession,  and  there- 
fore to  be  shunned  as  our  New  England  ancestors 
shunned  a  witch  (Matt,  xii.,  24).  When,  to  save 
sinners  who  were  in  dire  need  of  salvation,  He 
sought  to  win  them  to  Himself,  the  leaders  of 
religious  thought  stood  aloof  and  pointed  the 
finger  of  scorn — called  Him  a  glutton  in  appetite, 
a  toper  in  drink,  and  willingly  intimate  with  those 
with  whom  no  reputable  Jew  would  allow  himself 
to  associate  (Matt,  xi.,  19).  Under  treacherous 
professions  of  high  regard,  they  submitted  the 
much-disputed  question:  Could  they,  consistently 
with  their  religious  duty,  willingly  pay  taxes  to 
a  heathen  government  (Matt,  xxii.,  17)?  If  He 
said  ''Yes,"  He  would,  in  popular  apprehension, 
be  disloyal  to  Judaism  and  a  traitor  to  the  true 
interests  of  the  nation;  if  He  said  ''No, "  He  would 
be  guilty  of  treason  to  the  emperor.     With  like 


Jesus   of  Nazareth  1 1 

malignant  skill  and  equal  hypocrisy,  they  asked 
Him:  Should  the  Mosaic  law  of  death  by  ston- 
ing (which  had  long  before  passed  into  disuse) 
be  now  enforced  against  this  woman,  taken  in 
the  act  (John  viii.,  3-5)?  If  He  said  ''Yes," 
public  opinion,  long  accustomed  to  look  with 
complacency  on  such  derelictions,  would  call  Him 
cruel;  if  He  said  ''No,"  He  would  be  contro- 
verting a  law  of  Moses — a  crime  only  slightly 
less  heinous  in  their  estimation  than  that  of 
blasphemy. 

So  virulent  was  this  hostility,  that  early  in  His 
ministry  He  was  driven  out  of  Judaea,  and  there- 
after His  visits  to  Jerusalem  were  few  and  short. 
Even  in  Jerusalem  He  was  safe  from  violence 
only  because,  as  He  retained  the  confidence  of  the 
common  people.  His  persecutors  feared  that  His 
arrest  would  lead  to  a  riot  (Matt,  xxvi.,  5;  Luke 
xxii.,  2);  and  with  a  garrison  of  Roman  soldiers 
close  at  hand,  riots  were  dangerous.  Retiring 
to  Galilee,  He  gathered  about  Him  a  httle  group 
of  disciples  (learners),  and  for  some  time  carried 
on  His  work  with  marvelous  success  (Matt,  iv., 
23-25).  The  news  reached  Jerusalem,  and  His 
enemies  were  again  on  His  trail  (Mark  iii.,  22; 
vii.,  i).  Leaving  then  the  immediate  locality 
where  the  influences  of  orthodox  Judaism  were 
dominant,  He  thereafter  spent  the  greater  portion 
of  His  Hfe  in  the  border-lands  of  heathenism — in 
Gaulanitis,  to  the  eastward  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee 
(Mark  v.,  i ;  viii.,  10) ;  in  the  borders  of  Tyre  and 


12  Jesus  of  Nazareth 

Sidon  (Mark  vii.,  24)  and  Caesarea  Philippi 
(Mark  viii.,  2'])  away  to  the  north;  and  in  Peraea, 
east  of  the  Jordan  (John  x.,  40) ;  but  making  a  tour 
now  and  then  among  the  villages  of  Galilee  (Matt. 
ix.,  35;  Mark  ix.,  30;  Lukeix.,  6),  and  also  attend- 
ing the  passover  feasts  at  Jerusalem,  as  the  Mosaic 
law  required.  But  whenever  He  appeared  in 
Jerusalem  the  old  persecution  was  renewed.  It 
was  finally  determined  that  He  must  be  put  to 
death  (John  vii.,  i),  for  in  no  other  way  could 
they  silence  Him  or  stop  the  progress  of  His  work. 
No  secrecy  was  preserved  as  to  their  plans  (verse 
25).  Officers  were  sent  to  arrest  Him  while  He 
taught  in  the  temple  (verse  45),  but  they  were 
completely  overawed  by  the  sublimity  with  which 
He  spoke  (verse  46).  The  treachery  of  Judas 
finally  enabled  them  to  accomplish  their  purpose, 
and  within  a  few  hours  the  Roman  soldiers  were 
nailing  Him  to  the  cross. 

Whether  Jesus,  at  the  end  of  the  temptation, 
when  He  saw  marked  out  for  Him  (or  when  He 
marked  out  for  Himself)  the  road  He  must  travel 
in  order  to  save  our  fallen  race — whether  He 
then  saw^  the  accursed  cross  at  the  farther  end  of 
the  road,  is  not  stated.  But  for  John  iii.,  14,  15, 
I  should  infer  that  He  did  not — that  is,  unless 
Omniscience  aided  His  human  vision.  According 
to  the  first  three  Gospels,  the  first  clear  intimation 
He  gives  that  He  foresaw  His  tragic  fate  was  made 
at  or  near  Cassarea  Philippi  (Matt,  xvi.,  21),  after 
He  had  been  driven  out  of  Gahlee,  and  not  far 


Jesus  of  Nazareth  13 

from  the  middle  of  His  pubHc  ministry.  So 
startling  was  the  revelation  to  His  disciples  that  all 
three  of  the  synoptists  put  it  down  (Matt,  xvi.,  21 ; 
Mark  viii.,  31;  Luke  ix.,  22).  Certainly  then,  if 
not  earHer,  He  knew  His  journey's  end,  for  the 
logic  of  events  pointed  to  His  death  as  the  only 
possible  outcome.  To  his  vision  it  was  clear  as 
the  noonday,  and  He  so  predicted.  But  the 
grandeur  and  sublimity  of  His  character,  and,  I 
might  add.  His  divinity  as  well,  are  amply  attested 
by  the  fact  that  neither  then  nor  thereafter  did  He 
hesitate  a  step  in  His  appointed  journey,  or  seek 
a  less  dangerous  pathway.  At  the  end  of  the 
temptation.  He  put  his  hand  to  the  plow,  and 
thereafter  He  never  looked  back  (Luke  ix.,  62). 
Herein  rests  our  assurance  of  ultimate  salvation. 
Once  only,  near  the  end  of  the  journey,  when  the 
awful  cup  was  pressed  upon  Him,  and  in  the 
immediate  realization  of  the  terrible  sufferings  it 
involved.  He  expressed  the  wish  that  it  might  be 
otherwise  (Matt,  xxvi.,  39);  but  it  was  only  a 
transitory  wish  wnmg  from  Him  in  the  hour  of 
His  deep  agony,  and  has  no  significance  except  as 
it  enables  us  faintly  to  measure  the  weight  of  the 
load  of  grief  He  then  had  to  carr}^ — and  He  carried 
it  to  the  final  end. 

"Surely  He  hath  borne  our  griefs, 
And  carried  our  sorrows; 
He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions, 
He  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities : 


14  Jesus  of  Nazareth 

The  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  Him ; 
And  with  His  stripes  we  are  healed. 
And  Jehovah  hath  laid  on  Him  the  iniquity  of  us 
all." 


JESUS  OF  NAZARETH 
II 

"Whence  hath  this  man  this  wisdom?" — Matt,  xiii.,  54. 

The  Messianic  hope  or  expectation,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Christian  era,  existed  in  various 
forms.  More  commonly  it  was  expected  that  the 
Messiah  would  be  bom,  not  of  an  obscure  and 
distant  offshoot  of  the  Davidic  Hne,  but  of  some 
branch  of  recognized  pedigree,  good  rank,  and 
high  standing;  that  he  would  reoccupy  the  throne 
of  David,  making  Jerusalem  his  capital;  that  as  a 
temporal  king  he  would  recruit  and  remuster  the 
armies  of  Israel,  expel  the  hated  Romans,  and  by 
military  conquest  subjugate  the  Gentiles  even 
imto  the  ends  of  the  earth ;  that  as  a  spiritual  king 
he  would  convert  to  the  true  and  eternal  religion 
of  Jehovah  such  of  them  as  would  yield  to  the 
power  of  His  word;  and  that  all  others  He  would 
destroy  by  ''the  sword  of  his  mouth. " 

This  form  of  the  Messianic  expectation  is 
embodied  in  the  song  of  the  annunciation  (Luke 
i->  32,  33),  as  well  as  in  the  song  of  Zacharias 
(verses  67-75).  I^  was  also  the  basis  of  one  of  the 
temptations  presented  to  Jesus  before  He  entered 

15 


1 6  Jesus  of  Nazareth 

on  His  public  ministry  (Matt,  iv.,  8,  9).  So 
dominant  was  it  in  Jewish  thought  that  the  popu- 
lace were  once  on  the  point  of  putting  it  into 
execution  (John  vi.,  15).  Nearly  a  century  later 
the  same  idea  so  permeated  the  mind  of  the  writer 
of  the  Apocalypse  that  in  one  of  his  visions  he 
delineated  the  Son  of  man  as  a  mounted  and 
crowned  warrior-king  leading  the  armies  of  heaven, 
invested  with  a  rod  of  iron  wherewith  to  rule  the 
nations  and  with  the  sword  of  his  mouth  for 
vengeance  (Rev.  xix.,  11-16). 

Another  form  or  embodiment  of  the  Messianic 
expectation  was  based  on  the  promise  of  Mai.  iv., 
5,  6,  which,  being  literally  construed,  was  thought 
to  predict  the  personal  reappearance  of  the  prophet 
Elijah.  This  idea  figures  prominently  in  the 
Gospels,  as  in  John  i.,  21;  Luke  ix.,  8,  19;  Matt, 
xvii.,  II.  And  under  a  third  form,  as  noted  in 
some  of  the  same  passages,  it  was  expected  that 
some  person,  usually  designated  as  "a  prophet," 
but  whose  name  was  not  certainly  known,  would 
appear  to  make  good  the  ancient  prediction  of 
Deut.  xviii.,  15. 

But  Jesus,  during  His  public  ministry,  never 
made  any  effort  to  conform  to  any  of  these  expec- 
tations. As  has  been  frequently  remarked,  He 
was  an  enigma  to  His  own  generation.  He  did 
not,  at  least  until  late  in  His  ministry,  announce 
Himself  as  being  anybody  in  particular — just  the 
"Son  of  man"  which  phrase,  whatever  it  may 
mean  now,  was  at  that  time  merely  an  impressive 


Jesus  of  Nazareth  17 

individual  designation  as  in  Ezek.  ii.,  i,  3;  iii.,  i,  3, 
4,  etc.  Instead  of  declaring  Himself  to  be  this  or 
that  (as  humbugs  do)  He  simply  talked  and  did, 
resting  His  claims  solely  on  His  works.  Conse- 
quently everybody  was  nonplussed  as  to  what  to 
make  of  Him.  But  one  thing  was  clear;  He  pos- 
sessed a  surprising  wealth  of  knowledge,  and  in  the 
use  of  that  knowledge  He  taught  as  one  who  held 
authority  from  Heaven  to  proclaim  the  verities 
of  life  and  immortality,  and  not  as  the  scribes 
taught,  by  retailing  the  barren  pueriHties 
of  Talmudic  casuistry  (Matt,  vii.,  29).  As  He 
was  a  man  without  education  (John  vii.,  15), 
that  is,  had  not  attended  any  of  the  rabbinic 
schools,  or  as  we  should  say  to-day,  was  not  a 
graduate  of  any  college  or  theological  seminary, 
the  common  people  or  peasantry  who  listened 
to  the  wonderful  and  exhaustless  outflow  of  His 
intellectual  and  spiritual  wealth,  very  naturally 
asked  where  it  all  came  from,  where  He,  "the 
carpenter's  son,"  of  the  obscure  village  of  Nazareth, 
could  have  learned  it  all. 

One  of  the  most  prominent  of  His  characteris- 
tics— and  one  of  the  most  charming  as  well — was 
His  love  of  Nature  in  all  her  varied  moods.  He 
was  a  close  observer,  and  the  abundance  of  His 
observation  gave  Him  a  marvelous  wealth  of 
illustration.  When  he  told  how  "the  rain  de- 
scended, and  the  floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew, " 
and  on  the  hillsides  of  Galilee  washed  away  the 
house  of  one  peasant  and  left  another  standing 


1 8  Jesus  of  Nazareth 

(Matt,  vii.,  24-27),  He  only  described  what  He 
had  seen.  To  enforce  a  moral,  He  reminded  His 
hearers  that  men  do  not  "gather  grapes  of  thorns 
nor  figs  of  thistles"  (Matt,  vii.,  16).  While  giv- 
ing an  outdoor  talk,  He  taught  them  the  loving 
care  of  the  Father  by  pointing  to  the  birds  flying 
about  overhead:  "they  sow  not,  neither  do  they 
reap,  nor  gather  into  barns;  and  your  heavenly 
Father  feedeth  them"  (Matt,  vi.,  26). 

Again,  "the  lilies  of  the  field, "  probably  growing 
near  where  He  stood,  illustrated  another  lesson, 
of  profit  to  them  and  equally  so  to  us  (verse  28), 
He  had  watched,  too,  the  sower  who  "went  forth 
to  sow"  (Matt,  xiii.,  3-8),  and  had  noted  how  the 
birds  picked  up  some  of  the  seeds  scattered  "by 
the  wayside";  how  the  semitropical  sun  scorched 
and  withered  some  of  the  growing  shoots  of  grain 
on  a  thin  surface-soil;  how  the  thorns  choked  the 
growth  of  others;  and  how  such  seeds  as  fell  on 
fertile  soil  grew  and  ripened  into  an  abundant 
harvest.  The  foxes  in  their  burrows  and  the  birds 
in  their  nests  illustrated  by  contrast  His  own 
homelessness  (Matt,  viii.,  20).  The  wolf,  in  His 
thought,  typified  "man's  inhumanity  to  man," 
and  among  such.  His  followers  should  be  "wise  as 
serpents,  and  harmless  as  doves"  (Matt,  x.,  16). 
A  gift  to  one  of  them,  of  "a  cup  of  cold  water," 
would  receive  its  reward  (verse  42). 

He  drew  lessons  of  profit  from  the  swaying  in 
the  wind  of  the  tall  rushes  that  grew  in  the  marshes 
down  by  the  Jordan  (Matt,  xi.,  7) ;  from  the  single 


Jesus  of  Nazareth  19 

sheep  that  constituted  the  little  wealth  of  a 
peasant,  and  which  fell  into  a  pit  (Matt,  xii.,  11); 
and  from  the  single  sheep  that  strayed  away  from 
the  flock  and  was  lost  (Matt,  xviii.,  12).  He  had 
known  of  some  vindictive  enemy  who  had  mali- 
ciously spoiled  the  growing  crop  of  a  thrifty 
neighbor  (Matt,  xiii.,  25),  and  the  outcome  il- 
lustrated the  leading  events  of  the  final  judgment. 
The  sky  of  to-day  told  what  the  weather  of  to- 
morrow would  be  (Matt,  xvi.,  2,  3);  and  the 
budding  of  the  fig-tree  betokened  that  the  summer 
was  near  (Mark  xiii.,  28).  The  evening  breeze, 
unknown  as  to  "whence  it  cometh,  and  whither  it 
goeth,"  was  utilized  to  teach  to  Nicodemus  the 
lesson  of  the  new  birth  (John  iii.,  8);  and  Jacob's 
well  gave  Him  a  text  for  a  lesson  on  immortality 
in  His  talk  with  the  woman  of  Samaria  (John  iv., 
13,  14).  A  field  of  ripened  grain  suggested  a  har- 
vest ''imto  life  eternal"  (verses  35,  36)— a  harvest 
in  which  "the  reapers  are  the  angels"  (Matt,  xiii., 

39). 

In  the  realm  of  nature  He  knew  all  that  there 
was  to  be  known;  and  He  was  equally  familiar 
with  the  usages  and  laws  of  business  and  govern- 
ment. The  owner  of  real  estate  was  the  lawful 
owner  of  lost  or  concealed  plunder  foimd  therein 
(verse  44).  He  knew  the  pearl- trade  as  well  as 
the  pearl- traders  themselves  (verses  45,  46); 
and  He  imderstood  the  fisherman's  occupation  as 
if  it  were  His  own  (verses  47,  48),  and  a  shepherd's 
life  equally  well   (John  x.,   1-14)-     The  parable 


20  Jesus  of  Nazareth 

of  the  talents  (Matt,  xxv.,  14-30)  indicates  his 
familiarity  with  the  banking  business  of  His  day. 
The  employment  of  laborers  and  payment  of 
wages  (Matt,  xx.,  1-16),  the  renting  of  land  and 
payment  in  kind,  as  well  as  the  dishonest  trans- 
actions sometimes  incident  thereto  (Luke  xvi., 
1-8),  were  all  as  famiHar  to  Him  as  if  He  had  been 
the  wealthiest  landlord  in  all  Galilee. 

The  law  as  to  the  division  of  estates  by  inheri- 
tance underlay  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son 
(Luke  XV.,  11-32);  while  the  general  corruption  of 
the  magistrates  of  his  day — and  we  have  some  of 
that  kind  yet — is  briefly  but  graphically  sketched 
in  that  parable  of  the  unjust  judge  (Luke  xviii., 
1-5).  Without  experience,  or  even  observation, 
of  the  usages  of  royal  courts  or  the  laws  of  war, 
He  discoursed  of  both  with  no  display  of  ignorance 
(Matt,  xxii.,  1-14;  Luke  vii.,  25;  xiv.,  31,  32;  xix., 
11-27).  He  was  apparently  well  versed  in  the 
political  relations  of  the  nation,  and  in  the  laws 
of  taxation,  both  of  the  church  and  the  state 
(Matt,  xvii.,  24-27;  xxii.,  17-21).  He  had  ob- 
served the  usual  methods  of  litigation  in  the  petty 
courts  of  the  provinces  (Matt,  v.,  25,  26);  knew 
of  the  barbarous  penology  of  His  time  (Matt. 
xviii.,  34) ;  and  showed  at  His  trial  that  He  was  as 
well  informed  in  the  rules  and  practice  of  Jewish 
criminal  law  as  were  His  chief  judges,  Annas  and 
Caiaphas  of  the  high  priesthood. 

Proofs    of    His    perfect    familiarity    with    the 
Jewish  scriptures,   with  the  past  history  of  the 


Jesus  of  Nazareth  21 

nation,  with  its  kings  and  priests  and  prophets, 
with  its  religion  and  its  lack  of  religion  as  well,  with 
its  decayed  morals,  its  degenerate  formalism,  its 
bigoted  hypocrisy  and  almost  total  corruption, 
are  found  on  nearly  every  page  of  the  Gospel 
records.  He  not  only  knew  it  all,  but  He  knew  it 
better  than  anybody  else,  for  He  gave  to  most  of 
it  a  meaning  never  thought  of  before,  and  so  sim- 
ple and  obvious  a  meaning  that  His  statement 
on  any  subject  went  for  a  demonstration.  He 
rarely  made  any  effort  to  prove  the  truth  of  what 
He  said,  for  it  was  so  obviously  true  that  no  one 
could  question  or  deny  it.  The  best-trained  and 
most  skilful  casuists  of  His  day  could  do  nothing 
with  Him  (Matt,  xxii.,  15-40);  and  hostile  attacks 
by  the  learned  rabbis  of  the  temple  were  equally 
barren  of  anticipated  results  (Mark  xi.,  27-33). 
It  will  be  noted  that  I  am  now  dealing  only  with 
those  elements  or  incidents  of  Jesus'  life  that 
illustrate  the  wealth  and  extent  of  His  knowledge 
in  respect  to  strictly  mimdane  affairs.  For  my 
present  purpose,  I  leave  out  of  consideration  that 
part  of  His  life  and  career  by  which  He  brought 
salvation  to  our  race.  Regarding  Him  strictly 
as  a  man  among  men,  His  supremacy  stands  out 
perhaps  most  markedly  in  His  intuitive  knowledge 
of  men.  Here,  with  possibly  a  single  exception, 
He  never  made  a  mistake.  His  quick  and  accurate 
discernment  of  human  character,  especially  noted 
in  John  ii.,  23-25,  is  one  of  the  most  striking 
featiu*es  of  His  entire  life. 


22  Jesus  of  Nazareth 

Even  at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  when  the 
Pharisaic  branch  of  the  Jewish  church,  through 
Nicodemus,  its  leading  ''teacher,"  sought  to 
inveigle  the  young  and  rising  rabbi  into  their 
camp.  He  saw  through  the  scheme  in  an  instant, 
and  dexterously  held  Himself  aloof  (John  iii.,  1-15). 
Though  often  hypocritically  approached  with 
words  of  apparently  extravagant  praise,  as  in 
Matthew  xxii.,  16,  or,  as  once  happened,  for  private 
and  selfish  ends,  as  in  Luke  xii.,  13,  never  in  any 
such  case  did  He  fail  to  "size  up"  the  person  or  to 
fathom  his  secret  purpose.  No  man  ever  caught 
Him  off  guard  or  used  Him  or  His  influence  for 
improper  ends.  On  the  other  hand,  no  honest 
and  worthy  appeal  was  ever  refused  through  a 
suspected  doubt  of  the  honesty  of  the  applicant. 
No  masking  of  hypocrisy  ever  withstood  His 
scrutiny;  nor  did  a  modest  garb  ever  obscure  to 
His  \dsion  the  genuineness  of  the  honesty  that 
lay  behind. 

In  intimating  as  above  that  Jesus  was  once 
possibly  deceived  in  His  estimate  of  men,  I  had  in 
mind  His  selection  of  Judas  Iscariot  as  one  of  his 
intimate  and  trusted  friends.  Whether  He  was 
really  deceived  is  a  question  that  I  cannot  answer. 
According  to  John,  He  was  not,  but  knew  from  the 
first  what  kind  of  man  Judas  was  (John  vi.,  64). 
But  Jesus'  own  first  denunciation  of  Judas  (verse 
70)  reads  to  me  much  as  if  He  then  spoke  with  a 
feeling  of  anger  or  else  of  disappointment,  or 
possibly  both ;  as  though  He  had  found  out,  either 


Jesus  of  Nazareth  23 

then  or  quite  recently,  how  seriously  and  sadly 
He  had  previously  overestimated  the  man.  No 
commentator,  with  whose  work  I  am  familiar, 
gives  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  this  discrepancy. 
Some  try  to  do  it,  and,  though  believing  that 
they  succeed,  actually  fail;  others  try,  and  give 
it  up;  still  others  pass  ^it  by  and  say  nothing 
about  it. 

Jesus  was  also  singularly  happy  in  the  framing 
and  speaking  of  short,  crisp,  pithy  sayings  of  the 
kind  that  we  call  proverbs.  The  Gospels  are  full 
of  them.     For  example : 

''Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged." 
*'No  man  can  serve  two  masters." 
''By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 
"The  workman  is  worthy  of  his  meat." 
"Sufficient  imto  the  day  is  the  evil  thereof." 
"If  the  salt  have  lost  its  savor,  wherewith  shall 
it  be  salted?" 

"A  city  set  on  a  hill  cannot  be  hid. " 
"Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead." 
"They    that  are  whole    have  no    need   of    a 
physician." 

"A  disciple  is  not  above  his  master,  nor  a  servant 
above  his  lord. " 

"If  the  blind  lead  the  blind,  both  shall  fall  into 
the  ditch." 

"  Many  are  called,  but  few  chosen. " 
"Strain  at  a  gnat,  and  swallow  a  camel." 
"Wheresoever  the  carcass  is,  there  will  the  eagles 
be  gathered  together." 


24  Jesus  of  Nazareth 


''Out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the  mouth 
speaketh." 

"The  spirit  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak.'* 

These  are  only  a  few  of  a  multitude  of  Hke  kind ; 
and  I  have  refrained  from  citing  any  of  the  more 
numerous  class  which  relate  to  His  work  of  bring- 
ing "life  and  immortality  to  light."  That  in 
them  all  He  fully  justified  the  popular  verdict 
(John  vii.,  46),  cannot  be  gainsaid.  But  where 
or  how  did  He  learn  or  acquire  it  all?  "Whence 
hath  this  man  this  wisdom?" 

I  was  brought  up  in  the  belief  that  His  superi- 
ority, even  in  the  matters  thus  enumerated,  was  a 
product  of  the  divinity  that  dwelt  in  Him;  and 
such,  I  believe,  is  the  generally  accepted  view 
among  His  Trinitarian  followers.  But  this  view 
has  no  Biblical  support,  unless  it  be  in  the  passage 
from  John  already  quoted  (vi.,  64);  while  from 
what  Luke  says  (ii.,  52)  I  should  infer  that  he  was 
of  the  opposite  opinion.  As  to  the  relationship 
of  His  divine  nature  to  His  human  mentality  and 
spirituality — that  is,  as  to  how  far  or  in  what  way 
the  two  were  united  or  blended  and  coworked — 
we  have  no  information  whatever.  He  tells  us 
nothing  about  it  Himself;  and  Paul,  who  knew 
more  of  Him  than  anybody  else,  admits  that  he 
knew  nothing — the  "mystery"  was  too  great  even 
for  His  comprehension  (I.  Tim.  iii.,  16).  And  if 
Paul  did  not  understand  it,  I  prefer  to  regard 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  not  only  as  the  manifestation 
of  the  Father's  glory  (Heb.  i.,  3),  but  also  as  be- 


Jesus  of  Nazareth  25 

ing  the  very  perfection  of  humanity,  physically, 
mentally,  and  spiritually,  and  as  showing  to  all 
the  members  of  humanity  what  it  was  possible 
for  them  to  become. 

Direct  divine  intervention  in  human  ajffairs, 
either  by  miracles  or  otherwise,  is  not  to  be  pre- 
sumed where  it  is  not  revealed,  and  where  the 
facts  do  not  require  it.  So  far  as  I  can  see,  there 
is  no  reason  why  we  should  feel  compelled  to 
assume  that  when  Jesus  was  dealing  with  strictly 
mimdane  affairs  He  must  have  exercised  or  called 
to  His  aid  any  trait,  faculty,  or  knowledge  that 
did  not  belong  to  Him  as  a  man.  That  He 
possessed  transcendant  genius,  superior  powers  of 
observation,  marvelous  aptitude  in  the  acquisi- 
tion of  knowledge,  both  of  men  and  things,  and 
equally  marvelous  aptitude  in  clearness,  brevity, 
force,  and  originality  of  expression,  may  safely 
be  affirmed.  That  in  all  these  respects  He  excelled 
every  other  man  that  ever  lived,  may  be  regarded 
as  equally  clear.  Why,  then,  must  we  argue  or 
conclude  that,  in  respect  of  gifts  that  belong  to 
himianity  at  large  (though,  of  course,  in  a  less 
degree).  His  divinity  must  have  been  called  into 
exercise  at  all?  Possibly  it  was,  but  what  is  our 
authority  for  making  it  an  article  of  faith?  We 
call  Shakespeare  a  genius ;  and  notwithstanding  his 
humble  birth,  his  lack  of  education,  and  his  some- 
what ignoble  employment,  we  are  astonished  at 
the  extent  of  his  knowledge,  and  his  originality 
and  grace  of  expression.     But  does  Shakespeare 


26  Jesus   of  Nazareth 

mark  the  utmost  limit  of  possible  human  attain- 
ment? Must  we  say  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  that  He 
excelled  Shakespeare  only  because  He  was  divine, 
and  called  on  His  divinity  to  eke  out  the  supposed 
deficiencies  of  His  humanity?  I  do  not  so  read 
the  Gospels,  nor  do  I  so  understand  the  facts. 
If  "it  behooved  Him  in  all  things  to  be  made 
like  unto  His  brethren"  (Heb.  ii.,  17),  I  do  not  see 
how  we  can  avoid  the  conclusion  that  in  respect  to 
the  traits  I  have  above  sketched,  He  was  like  unto 
us  (except  in  degree),  and  enjoyed  divine  aid  as, 
and  only  as,  every  other  son  of  Adam  may  enjoy 
the  same  aid.  And  herein,  as  it  seems  to  me,  lies 
the  assurance  of  the  final  redemption  of  our  race. 
A  man  is  more  helpful  than  an  angel ;  or,  at  least,  in 
an  emergency  in  which  I  need  help,  I  would  prefer 
the  aid  of  a  brother  man.  Angels  may  be  very  good 
and  very  useful  in  their  place,  but  I  do  not  under- 
stand them.  A  man,  I  do  understand;  and  it  is 
the  manhood,  or,  if  you  prefer,  the  humanity,  of 
the  ''man,  Jesus  Christ"  (Rom.  v.,  15)  that  ap- 
peals especially  to  me  as  one  of  the  very  cogent 
factors  in  the  work  that  He  came  to  do.  And  if 
that  manhood,  or  humanity,  is  as  large,  as  mani- 
fold, as  all-embracing,  and  as  sympathetic  as  the 
Gospels  appear  to  indicate,  may  not  His  devout 
followers  rest  confidently  in  the  assurance  that, 
humbly  and  faithfully  following  Him  day  by  day, 
they  will,  through  His  grace,  ultimately  come  to 
"be  like  Him" — when  they  "shall  see  Him  even 
as  He  is"?  (I.  John  iii.,  2). 


Jesus  of  Nazareth  27 

So  far  as  my  reading  has  gone,  Paul  appears  to 
be  the  original  author  of  the  above-quoted  phrase, 
the  ''man,  Jesus  Christ."  To  all  appearances, 
he  used  it  advisedly  and  with  a  purpose;  and  the 
argument  of  Romans  v.  is  based  on  its  correct- 
ness. Of  course,  Paul's  orthodoxy  in  what  he 
thus  says  cannot  be  called  in  question;  but  if  any 
Trinitarian  scholar  of  the  last  fifteen  hundred  years 
had  said  it,  and  if  Paul  had  not  said  it,  a  fairly 
good-sized  door  wt>uld  have  been  opened  for  a 
charge  of  heresy.  Our  church  in  its  maintenance 
of  the  deity  of  Christ  has  failed  to  emphasize 
adequately  His  human  personality  and  manhood 
as  efficient  factors  in  the  regeneration  of  the  race. 
This  "ought  ye  to  have  done,  and  not  to  leave  the 
other  undone"  (Luke  xi.,  42). 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  PAUL 

It  is  undoubtedly  a  fact  that,  take  it  by  and 
large,  the  average  lay  member  of  the  church  gets 
comparatively  little  direct  spiritual  benefit  from  the 
writings  of  Paul,  although  as  a  matter  of  duty,  he 
may  read  them  now  and  then  in  a  perfunctory  sort 
of  way.  By  direct  benefit  I  mean  that  which 
comes  or  ought  to  come  from  the  perusal  or  study 
of  the  writings  themselves,  as  distinguished  from 
what  we  hear  from  the  pulpit  or  read  in  the 
commentaries.  And  by  spiritual  benefit  I  mean 
that  peculiar  benefit  which  edifies,  which  builds 
up  a  holy  character,  as  a  house  is  built  from  crude 
materials  into  a  structure  perfectly  adapted  for 
its  purposes,  and  which  makes  men  and  women 
better  to-day  than  they  were  yesterday,  better 
this  year  than  last  year.  This  is  what  "edify" 
means — to  build  up  into  an  edifice;  and  edifica- 
tion is  the  process  of  building  up.  Preaching  or 
Biblical  study  that  does  not  result  in  edification, 
the  building  up  of  character,  the  making  of  perfect 
and  pure  lives,  fails  of  its  chief  purpose. 

And  it  is  equally  true  that  Paul  intended  to 
write  for  the  edification  of  his  readers.  He 
undoubtedly  knew  what  he  was  writing  about; 

28 


The  Writings  of  Paul  29 

and  his  natural  ability,  his  training,  and  the  spirit- 
ual power  that  rested  in  him,  were  amply  sufficient 
to  qualify  him  for  doing  what  he  thus  intended, 
and  for  doing  it  well.  In  his  own  particular  field 
he  was  a  master  workman. 

Why  is  it,  then,  that  Paul's  writings  are  un- 
popular with  laymen  for  general  devotional 
reading?  We  go  to  them  freely  for  purposes  of 
theological  controversy;  but  with  the  exception  of 
a  few  passages  such  as  that  on  the  Lord's  Supper 
(I.  Cor.  xi.,  23-28),  or  that  on  charity  (I.  Cor. 
xiii.),  or  that  on  the  resurrection  (I.  Cor.  xv., 
35-57),  we  are  likely  in  our  devotional  reading 
to  give  Paul  the  go-by  and  turn  preferably  to 
the  Gospels  or  the  Psalms.     Why  is  this? 

In  the  first  place,  we  have  learned  to  think  of 
Paul  chiefly  as  a  theologian,  and  this  has  led  us  to 
approach  the  study  or  perusal  of  his  writings  from 
a  wrong  point  of  view.  Paul  cared  nothing  for 
theology  as  theology.  If  he  had  been  asked  whether 
he  was  a  Calvinist  or  an  Arminian,  he  probably 
would  have  replied  that  he  did  n't  know ;  or 
perhaps  that  he  was  both;  or  possibly  that,  in 
view  of  his  anxiety  to  carry  the  Gospel  of  salvation 
to  the  Gentiles,  he  did  not  care  even  to  consider 
the  question:  I.  Corinthians  iii.  reads  very  much 
that  way.  When  he  says  (Phil,  ii.,  12,  13),  "work 
out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling," 
he  talks  much  like  an  Arminian;  but  when  he 
immediately  adds  ''for  it  is  God  who  worketh  in 
you    both    to  will    and   to   work,    for  His  good 


30  The  Writings  of  Paul 

pleasure,"  he  clearly  occupies  Calvinistic  ground. 
In  order  to  get  a  clear  and  correct  understand- 
ing of  what  Paul  meant,  we  must  learn  to  look  at 
and  construe  his  writings  from  his  own  particular 
point  of  view.  He  took  facts  as  he  found  them,  and 
put  down  or  narrated  the  facts  as  he  saw  them. 
From  the  standpoint  of  a  pioneer  in  the  work  of 
Christian  missions,  he  looked  out  over  the  great 
fields  of  heathenism,  which  then  included  (except 
Palestine)  the  entire  known  world ;  took  knowledge 
of  the  seeds  of  vice,  impurity,  and  corruption 
which  were  almost  universally  sown  thereon,  and 
also  observed  the  morally  rotten  harvests  that 
followed.  He  tells  us  of  those  harvests  and  of 
what  they  consisted  (Gal.  v.,  19-21).  Is  it  any 
wonder  that  in  describing  the  world  of  heathenism 
as  he  saw  it,  and  particularly  when  he  contrasted 
its  moral  vileness  with  the  fruits  of  a  Christian 
Hfe  (verse  22),  he  should  have  used  words  and 
terms  that  smack  strongly  of  what  we  now  call 
*' total  depravity"?  You  or  I  in  his  position 
would  have  done  the  same,  for  truth  required  it. 
The  heathen  world  as  a  mass  was  at  that  time 
totally  depraved,  and  a  truthful  description  of  the 
extent  and  depth  of  its  depravity  exhausted  the 
capacity  in  that  direction  of  the  language  in  which 
he  wrote.  True,  certain  of  the  more  cultiu*ed  lead- 
ers of  Greek  and  Roman  thought  had  elaborated 
and  given  to  the  world  systems  or  codes  of 
morals,  some  of  which  closely  approximated  that 
of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.     But  they  rested  for  their 


The  Writings  of  Paul  31 

binding  force  or  obligation,  not,  as  in  Christianity, 
on  any  law  of  self-denying  love,  but  only  on  a 
non-obvious  self-interest,  or  at  the  best  on  an 
asserted  public  good — considerations  that  took 
hold  of  only  an  individual  here  and  there,  and  not 
of  the  great  majority.  Consequently  society  at 
large  remained  and  continued  to  be  as  vile  and 
corrupt  as  if  a  code  of  morals  had  been  an  unknown 
thing.     Paul  so  observed  it  and  so  described  it. 

Now,  from  Paul's  description  of  ancient 
heathendom  we  have  deduced  the  theological 
dogma  of  "total  depravity, "  applying  it  to  modem 
Christendom.  What  he  declared  to  be  true  of 
Gentile  life  and  society  as  they  existed  in  his  day, 
we,  by  our  creeds,  have  declared  to  be  true  as 
applied  to  our  modem  life — to  our  next-door 
neighbor,  whose  "walk  and  conversation"  are  as 
tmexceptionable  as  our  own.  Nor  am  I  denying 
now  the  truth  of  our  creed.  It  may  be  that  this 
next-door  neighbor,  that  our  nearest  and  dearest 
relative,  and  even  we  ourselves  are  totally  de- 
praved; but  we  do  injustice  to  Paul  when  we  set 
his  writings  to  prove  that  fact.  For  Paul  was  not 
writing  with  any  reference  to  such  a  condition  as 
that  of  the  very  largely  Christianized  civilization 
of  the  present  day,  but  rather  was  describing  the 
almost  universally  prevalent  heathenism  of  his 
own  day.  In  other  words,  he  was  not  stating  a 
dogmatic  theory,  but  narrating  a  practical  fact, 
or  a  series  of  such  facts,  as  they  then  existed. 

And  why  did  he  thus  narrate  them?     Simply  to 


32  The  Writings  of  Paul 

lead  His  readers  away  from  the  vile  usages  of 
heathenism,  and  to  persuade  them  to  the  practice 
of  certain  other  things  which  were  ''true"  and 
' '  honorable ' '  and  ' '  just ' '  and  ' '  pure ' '  and  ' '  lovely ' ' 
and  ''of  good  report"  (Phil,  iv.,  8).  To  make 
men  of  this  kind  out  of  the  poor  and  ignorant 
converts  from  the  slums  of  heathenism  (Rom.  i., 
28-32)  was  his  purpose  and  his  only  purpose.  The 
formulation  of  a  system  of  theology  nowhere 
appears  in  his  writings  to  have  been  any  part  of 
his  plan. 

We  go  equally  astray  in  assuming  that  Paul 
meant  to  formulate  and  teach  any  doctrine  of 
election  and  foreordination  when  he  reminded 
these  same  converts  that  God  in  His  kindness  to 
them,  and  as  an  expression  of  His  gracious  love, 
has  made  them  the  especial  recipients  of  His 
saving  mercy — and  this  to  the  end  that,  being 
sanctified  "in  spirit  and  soul  and  body,"  they 
might  be  ready  for  the  expected  coming  of  the 
Son  in  His  glory  (I.  Thess.  v.,  23).  "Election," 
as  Paul  taught  it,  went  no  further  than  this. 
Generally  he  represented  it,  not  as  a  dogma  of 
theology,  but  as  a  fact  of  Christian  experience  in 
the  lives  of  his  readers  (1.  Thess.  i.,  4,  5),  involving 
the  assurance  of  their  acceptance  in  the  sight 
or  presence  of  God.  Universally  he  used  his 
theology  simply  as  an  aid  or  stimulus  to  holy 
living.  In  all  his  writings  this  is  his  point  of  view. 
If  any  theological  truth  or  fact  could  be  used  to 
aid  him  in  making  saints  out  of  sinners,  he  so 


The  Writings  of  Paul  33 

used  it;  otherwise  he  had  no  use  for  it.  And 
having  developed  it  so  far  as  might  be  necessary 
for  this  purpose,  he  dropped  it. 

Hence,  in  reading  Paul  we  need  to  acquire  first 
a  new  point  of  view,  one  that  involves,  not  his 
supposed  greatness  as  a  theologian,  but  his 
greatness  as  a  teacher  to  ignorant  converts  just 
bom  out  of  heathenism — a  teacher  of  practical 
every-day  righteousness,  of  a  religion  to  live  by 
and  die  by,  a  religion  that  produces  or  results  in 
pure  lives,  holy  living.  And  this  above  all  things 
was  what  they  needed  to  know.  Nor  is  there 
much  doubt  that  we  also  need  to  know  it. 

Probably  to  a  greater  extent  than  any  other 
man  who  ever  tried  to  express  his  ideas  in  writing, 
Paul  was  embarrassed  and  hampered  by  the  de- 
fects and  limitations  of  the  language  in  which  he 
wrote.  While,  being  a  Jew,  he  probably  thought 
in  Hebrew,  he  had  to  write  in  Greek;  and  the  Greek 
language  had  no  words  for  the  expression  of  many 
Christian  ideas.  The  Chinese  vocabulary  has  no 
word  for  "God, "  simply  because  the  Chinese  peo- 
ple have  no  idea  or  conception  of  God.  Scarcely 
any  of  the  languages  of  barbarism  have  words 
for  the  expression  of  holiness,  purity,  sin,  sanctifi- 
cation,  atonement,  etc.,  for  the  reason  that  the 
ideas  which  these  words  represent  have  never  be- 
come a  part  of  the  thought  of  barbarous  peoples. 
The  English  language,  also,  being  originally  a 
language  of  heathenism,  is  at  some  points  equally 
deficient.     For  the  expression  of  the  idea  of  lovCy 


34  The  Writings  of  Paul 

whether  it  be  the  self -gratifying  love  that  a  man 
has  for  his  dog  or  his  dinner,  or  the  self-denying 
love  that  he  entertains,  or  ought  to  entertain,  for 
his  fellow-man,  as  well  as  for  his  Maker  and 
Redeemer,  the  English  language  has  practically 
but  a  single  word — the  word  "love."  Such  few 
synonyms  as  we  have  express  variations  in  the 
intensity  of  the  love,  but  not  in  its  kind.  Hence 
the  impossibility  which  confronted  our  translators, 
of  expressing  in  English  what  Paul  tried  to  say  in 
I.  Corinthians  xiii.,  about  that  particular  kind 
of  love  which  is  a  necessary  element  of  Christian 
faith  and  a  Christian  life. 

The  consequence  of  the  limitation  referred  to 
was  that  Paul  often  had  to  use  old  words  with 
new  meanings  and  trust  to  the  context  to  make  his 
own  meaning  clear,  as  in  his  use  of  the  word 
"charity"  (I.  Cor.  xiii.,  A.  V.);  or  he  sometimes 
added  a  clause  of  explanation,  as  in  reference  to 
the  resurrection-body  (I.  Cor.  xv.,  44),  or  resorted 
to  the  use  of  an  awkward  and  almost  meaningless 
circumlocution,  as  "the  mind  of  the  flesh"  (Rom. 
viii.,  7),  or  "the  body  of  this  death"  (Rom.  vii.,  24). 
Thus  the  unsuitableness  of  the  language  in  which 
he  wrote— that  is,  for  the  clear  expression  of 
Christian  ideas — has  much  to  do  with  the  difficulty 
the   average  reader  has  in   understanding   him. 

It  is  an  unfortunate  fact,  and  has  much  to  do 
with  Paul's  lack  of  popularity  as  a  writer,  that  our 
English  translation,  if  not  actually  bad,  is  at  least 
exceedingly   imperfect    and    defective;   for    it   is 


The  Writings  of  Paul  35 

approximately  a  literal  translation,  and  such  a 
translation  of  a  book  intended  for  general  reading 
frequently  fails  to  reproduce  with  clearness  and 
accuracy  the  particular  thought  or  shade  of  thought 
expressed  in  the  original.  And  this  is  especially 
true  of  writings  such  as  Paul's,  wherein  acciu-acy 
of  thought  and  exactness  and  brevity  of  expression 
are,  so  far  as  defects  of  language  would  permit, 
united  or  combined.  Books  of  exact  science  are 
usually  so  translated,  'as  are  also  books  especially 
intended  for  the  use  of  the  student  and  scholar; 
but  translations  made  for  general  reading  by  "all 
sorts  and  conditions  of  men"  are,  as  a  rule,  made 
on  different  lines.  The  Bible  is  the  only  excep- 
tion in  our  whole  range  of  literature  that  I  now 
recall.  A  large  part  of  the  difficulty  the  average 
reader  has  in  understanding  many  of  its  passages 
arises  from  the  fact  that  Hebrew  thoughts  and 
ideas,  though  embodied  in  English  words,  are  still 
expressed  in  forms  or  idioms  of  speech  peculiar  to 
the  Greek  and  Hebrew  tongues — idioms,  too,  that 
are  well  understood  only  by  trained  scholars.  A 
translation  of  Paul's  writings  that  any  devout 
reader  can  understand  as  readily  as  he  understands 
the  Gospels  is  a  desideratum  for  which  we  must 
look  to  the  indefinite  future ;  and  in  the  meantime, 
we  must  stumble  along  with  the  aid  of  commen- 
taries as  best  we  can.  The  Twentieth  Century  New 
Testament  (Revell  Co.),  while  it  has  its  defects, 
is  a  move  in  the  right  direction. 

So  far  as  we  can  now  ascertain,   Paul  never 


36  The  Writings  of  Paul 

imagined  that  he  was  writing  for  the  distant  future, 
for  posterity,  or  for  the  instruction  of  the  church 
through  all  the  centuries  of  its  coming  history. 
He  confidently  expected  the  return  of  the  Master 
at  a  very  early  date — in  fact,  sometime  during  the 
life-period  of  the  generation  then  living  (I.  Thess. 
iv.,  15,  17).  The  Master's  authority,  when  He 
should  come,  would  supersede  that  of  His  servant. 
Hence,  Paul  expected  that  his  letters  to  the 
churches  would  be  short-lived,  and  he  had  no 
occasion  to  deal  with  any  except  then-existing 
problems  and  conditions.  Probably  no  busier 
man  ever  Hved.  His  letters  show  that  they 
were  written  in  haste.  Like  letters  generally  they 
were  written  discursively  and  without  much 
regard  to  system.  They  were  letters  from  a 
pastor  to  his  own  people — letters  suggested  for 
the  most  part  by  their  then-existing  wants, 
necessities,  errors,  and  surroundings,  or  prompted 
by  his  interest  or  anxiety  in  their  behalf.  Writing 
in  haste,  he  often  omitted  explanations  that,  if 
added,  would  throw  light  on  some  things  now 
obscure.  Also,  some  things  obscure  to  us  were 
perfectly  intelligible  to  his  readers,  for  he  had 
already  given  them  the  necessary  oral  explanations, 
as  is  indicated  by  his  frequent  use  of  the  phrase 
*'For  ye  know,  brethren."  But,  passing  by  what 
is  obscure,  enough  remains  for  our  ''instruction  in 
righteousness,"  and  more  than  that  we  do  not 
need. 

Another  feature  of  Paul's  writings  which  the 


The  Writings  of  Paul  37 

general  reader  often  fails  to  take  into  account 
arises  from  the  fact  that  he  was  a  man  of  many  and 
widely  divergent  moods.  Sometimes  he  wrote  in 
great  sorrow  of  mind,  or  under  great  mental 
depression  (I.  Cor.  ii.,  3) ;  sometimes  with  the  most 
tender  affection  (I.  Thess.  ii.,  7) ;  sometimes  in  deep 
anger  (Gal.  iii.,  i),  and  with  good  cause;  some- 
times he  is  strictly  didactic,  as  much  so  as  a  modem 
school-teacher  (Rom.  xii.,  9  et  seq.);  sometimes 
closely  argumentative  1(Rom.  iii.) ;  at  times  violent- 
ly denunciatory  (I.  Cor.  vi.,) ;  sometimes  he  writes 
as  if  he  were  soliloquizing,  or  talking  to  himself 
(Rom.  vii.,  7-25);  sometimes  he  is  triumphantly 
grand  (II.  Tim.  iv.,  6-8),  and  grandly  sublime 
(I.  Cor.  XV.,  35-50);  but  always  he  is  terribly  in 
earnest.  Other  illustrations  of  all  these  diverse 
moods  or  states  of  mind  will  be  met  with  as  we 
progress ;  and  a  fairly  accurate  knowledge  of  them 
will  greatly  enhance  the  interest  of  the  devout 
reader  in  what  Paul  has  to  say. 

I  have  just  spoken  of  Paul  as  a  man  who  was 
always  terribly  in  earnest.  No  man  was  ever  more 
so ;  and  his  terrible  earnestness  was  always  directed 
to  one  point — the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles. 
Everything  that  he  had  ever  learned,  seen,  thought, 
or  done;  every  fact,  argimient,  and  consideration 
he  could  think  of;  every  element  of  personal 
influence  or  persuasive  appeal  that  he  could  use 
to  reach  the  human  mind  and  exercise  control 
over  human  conduct,  he  utilized  freely  for  the 
attainment  of  this  result.     He  regarded  the  Gen- 


38  The  Writings  of  Paul 

tiles  (including  everybody  except  the  Jews)  some- 
what as  a  diligent  farmer  in  harvest-time  regards 
his  crops  when  a  storm  is  impending.  They  must 
be  saved  at  all  hazards.  In  Paul's  spiritual  vision, 
a  storm  of  divine  wrath  was  impending  over  human- 
ity— a  terrible  storm,  a  storm  of  vengeance  (Rom. 
i.,  i8;  ii.,  5-8).  The  time  was  short  (I.  Cor.  vii., 
29).  The  storm  would  soon  break  loose.  Christ 
the  Lord  would  soon  reappear — so  Paul  thought — 
in  a  few  years  at  most  (I.  Thess.  iv.,  17).  .The 
Gentiles  must  be  gathered  in  out  of  the  storm,  and 
made  ready  for  His  appearing.  So  thinking,  it  is  no 
wonder  that  Paul  was  always  in  earnest,  and  that 
his  earnestness  was  something  almost  superhuman. 

Paul  was  a  skilled  logician  (according  to  the 
logical  method  of  his  day),  but  he  used  his  logic 
just  as  he  did  his  theology — as  an  aid  in  illustrat- 
ing, applying,  and  enforcing  his  gospel  of  salvation. 
If  logic  and  theology  answered  this  purpose,  well 
and  good.  If  they  failed  for  that  purpose,  he 
threw  them  both  away.  A  striking  illustration 
of  this  will  be  found  in  Romans  v.,  12,  13.  The 
logic  and  the  theology  of  this  celebrated  passage 
failed  to  establish  the  conclusions  that  Paul  had 
then  in  mind.  His  argument  appears  to  me  about 
thus,  and  I  quote  his  exact  words  as  they  appear 
in  our  Revised  Version : 

'* Through  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world: 

''And  death  through  sin: 

''And  so  death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all 
sinned." 


The  Writings  of  Paul  39 

I  should  imagine  that  he  stopped  a  moment  to 
think.     Was  tliis  correct?    Yes;  and  he  resumes: 

"For  until  the  law  sin  was  in  the  world. " 

Apparently  it  then  occurred  to  him  that: 

^' Sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no  law.'' 

In  view  of  this  additional  fact,  Paul  seems  to 
have  been  confronted  with  the  question :  If  prior  to 
Moses  the  law  did  not  exist,  and  if  ''sin  is  not 
imputed  where  there  is  no  law,'"  how  could  it  be 
said  that  from  Adam  tb  Moses  ''all  sinned''? 

At  this  point  his  argument  broke  down. 

But  he  made  no  effort  to  extricate  himself  from 
his  own  logical  dilemma.  Apparently  he  cared 
nothing  for  the  theology  or  the  logic  involved  in  his 
argument.  They  simply  failed  to  illustrate  the 
facts  he  had  in  mind  and  wished  to  make  clear- 
But  as  these  facts  were  true,  and  for  his  purposes 
were  infinitely  more  important  than  the  argument, 
he  threw  away  or  discarded  the  argument,  seeming 
to  care  so  little  for  it  that  he  would  not,  or  at  least 
did  not,  take  the  trouble  to  erase  it. 

"  Nevertheless, "  he  proceeds — that  is,  no  matter 
about  the  fallacy  of  the  argument  just  made 
(Rom.  v.,  12,  13),  the  fact  remains  that: 

"Death  reigned  from  Adam  until  Moses,"  etc. 
(verse  14). 

Nobody  could  dispute  this  as  a  fact. 

And  with  this  he  is  enabled  to  emphasize  the 
further  fact  or  conclusion,  which  was  the  point  he 
was  chiefly  after,  that  the  "free  gift"  of  grace  and 
salvation  through  Jesus  Christ  is  larger,  greater, 


40  The  Writings  of  Paul 

and  more  abundant  than  "the  trespass"  through 
Adam  (verses  15-21). 

Herein  consisted  one  of  the  chief  elements  of  his 
gospel  message  of  salvation. 

Paul  here,  as  elsewhere,  in  presenting  this 
gospel,  brushes  aside  everything  which  comes  his 
way.  Apparently  he  has  no  time  nor  thought  for 
anything  else.  Everything  within  the  range  of  his 
knowledge,  thought,  and  experience  that  will  aid 
him  in  elucidating  the  subject  of  personal  salvation 
through  a  crucified  Christ  effectively,  persuasively, 
and  convincingly,  he  uses  freely ;  everything  else  is 
discarded. 

Some  modem  theologians  kindly  help  Paul  out  of 
the  dilemma  of  verses  12,  13  by  saying  of  Adam's 
first  sin,  that  the  entire  human  race  then  ''sinned 
in  him,"  and  that  therefore  "all  sinned" — in  this 
way  making  involuntary  sinners  of  all  those  who 
lived  before  the  giving  of  the  law  by  Moses. 
Perhaps  this  is  a  correct  explanation,  but  Paul  is 
not  its  author.  He  himself  gives  a  better  one  in 
Rom.  i.,  20.  Natural  law,  he  says,  always  existed. 
When  men  violated  that  law,  they  became  sinners. 
As  they  all  violated  it,  of  course  they  "all  sinned. " 
Paul,  as  I  have  said,  sometimes  wrote  as  if  he  were 
soliloquizing — talking  to  himself.  A  notable  il^ 
lustration  of  this  occurs  in  Rom.  vii.,  7-25.  How 
was  the  presence  of  sinful  tendencies  in  the  heart 
after  conversion  to  be  accounted  for,  so  that  the 
untrained  and  uneducated  converts  of  the  church 
at  Rome,  recently  bom  out  of  heathenism,  could 


The  Writings  of  Paul  41 

understand  it?    They  were  mentally  incapable  of 
iinderstanding  the  doctrine  of  "total  depravity." 

"Original  sin"  would  be  to  them  a  meaningless 
phrase.  Satan  was  somebody  they  knew  nothing 
about. 

Paul,  by  an  imaginary  line  of  reasoning,  argued 
the  question  out  with  himself y  and  thus  showed 
them  how,  by  a  similar  mental  argument  of  their 
own,  they  could  reach  the  same  conclusions  for 
themselves,  which  he  Reached  for  himself.  These 
conclusions  are  stated  in  chapter  viii.  I  doubt 
if  Paul  cared  much  for  the  argument,  except  as  it 
guided  the  minds  of  his  readers  to  the  desired 
conclusions.  According  to  our  modem  teachings, 
his  view  of  indwelling  sin,  instead  of  a  personal 
Satan,  as  the  impelling  agency  to  sin,  is  theologic- 
ally unsound.  But  that  apparently  was  a  matter 
of  no  importance  to  him.  The  facts  of  practical 
religion  was  what  he  was  after.  These  he  made 
convincingly,  overwhelmingly  clear. 

Occasionally  in  Paul's  reasoning  there  is  an 
element  of  almost  childlike  simplicity  that  is 
really  charming.  Take,  for  example,  Rom.  v.,  7. 
To  illustrate  with  impressive  emphasis  the 
exceptional  greatness  of  divine  love,  in  ^'that 
while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us" 
(verse  8),  he  begins  (verse  7):  "For  scarcely 
for  a  righteous  man  will  one  die. " 

Just  then  it  appears  to  have  occurred  to  him 
that  this  was  perhaps  rather  too  broad  a  state- 
ment ;  that  it  w^as  at  least  conceivable  that  some 


42  The  Writings  of  Paul 

one  might  attain  to  such  height  of  genuine  good- 
ness; that  out  of  respect,  love,  or  veneration, 
somebody  might  be  willing  to  take  his  place  in  a 
deadly  peril.  But  instead  of  modifying  his 
statement  by  erasure  or  amendment,  as  a  modern 
writer  would  have  done,  he  added  an  expression 
of  doubt  as  to  its  correctness,  ''perad venture  for 
the  good  man  some  one  would  even  dare  to  die" — 
and  having  thus  set  himself  right,  he  proceeded  in 
verse  8,  with  its  application. 

Paul  probably  wrote  many  letters  or  epistles 
besides  those  which  are  still  preserved.  In  his 
*' anxiety  for  all  the  churches"  (II.  Cor.  xi.,  28),  it 
could  hardly  have  been  otherwise.  According  to 
I.  Cor.  v.,  9,  he  had  already  written  to  the 
Corinthians  once  before.  If  so,  he  wrote  at  least 
three  letters  to  the  church  at  Corinth.  A  now 
lost  letter  to  the  Laodiceans  appears  to  be  referred 
to  in  Colossians  iv.,  16,  and  another  in  Ephesians 
iii.,  3.  And  it  is  a  significant  fact  that  in  the 
second  of  the  two  earliest  letters  now  extant, 
when  adding  a  postscript  in  his  peculiar  hand- 
writing (Gal.  vi.,  11),  he  says  that  this  is  ''the 
token  in  every  epistle"  (II.  Thess.  iii.,  17),  thus 
implying  that  the  writing  of  such  letters  was  not 
uncommon  with  him  even  at  that  early  date, 
and  that  in  all  of  them  he  thus  wrote  the  conclusion 
with  his  own  hand  as  a  means  of  identification, 
and  also  as  a  protection  against  forgery.  For 
from  II.  Thessalonians  ii.,  2,  it  may  fairly  be  in- 
ferred that  Paul's  enemies  in  the  church  were  not 


The  Writings  of  Paul  43 

above  the  use  of  forged  epistles  for  the  purpose  of 
alienating  and  misleading  his  converts. 

It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  Paul  is  not  a 
graceful  writer;  that  is,  his  style  of  composition 
lacks  for  the  most  part  that  easy,  graceful  flow 
of  words  and  consecutive  expression  of  related 
ideas  which  are  found  in  the  Gospels  and  in  Acts ; 
or,  at  least,  it  so  appears  in  our  translation.  In 
fact,  as  a  writer  his  style  is  often  (though  not 
always)  as  erratic,  aSrupt,  and  rugged  as  that 
of  Thomas  Carlyle,  who  as  a  thinker  somewhat 
resembles  him.  Consequently  his  writings,  like 
those  of  Carlyle,  are  not  what  in  our  mental 
laziness  we  call  easy  reading;  but  his  richness  and 
originality  of  thought  in  the  setting  forth  of  the 
vital  matters  of  life  and  immortality  are  such  that 
the  diligent  and  devout  student  will  find  therein 
a  rich  reward.  Sometimes  he  apparently  errs  on 
the  side  of  conciseness,  heaping  up  a  host  of  great 
ideas  in  a  single  brief  sentence,  as,  for  example, 
in  Romans  iii.,  24,  25,  in  which  are  included  justi- 
fication, divine  grace,  human  redemption,  sacri- 
ficial propitiation,  saving  faith,  atoning  blood, 
righteousness,  sin,  and  forgiveness,  besides  half  a 
dozen  collateral  ideas,  and  all  in  a  paragraph 
of  only  forty-four  words.  Sometimes  language 
seems  to  fail  him,  or,  so  to  speak,  to  break  down, 
as  in  II.  Corinthians  iv.,  17,, where  he  tells  us  that 
the  '' afflictions"  of  this  life,  though  ''light"  (as 
regards  our  capacity  to  endure),  and  which  last 
but  ''for  the  moment "  (as  compared  with  eternity) 


44  The  Writings  of  Paul 

still  work  out  for  us  not  only  a  future  ** glory" 
but  a  "weight"  or  mass  of  glory,  and  a  "weight 
of  glory  "  which  will  be  "eternal, "  and  this  working 
will  go  on  during  eternity  ''more  and  more,'' 
that  is,  continually  increasing  in  its  energy,  and 
with  a  degree  of  increase  ''exceedingly''  beyond 
anything  he  can  describe.  Language  failed  him  to 
express  adequately  what  was  in  his  mind. 

One  of  the  unexpected  things  in  Paul's  writings 
is  his  use  of  the  phrase  "my  gospel" — not  once, 
but  repeatedly. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  PAUL 

Paul,  in  his  letters,  occasionally  speaks  of 
something  which  he  calls  "my  gospel."  Three 
times  he  uses  this  specific  phrase  (Rom.  ii.,  i6; 
xvi.,  25;  II.  Tim.  ii.,  8). 

In  four  other  cases  he  seems  to  have  the  same 
idea  in  mind,  for  he  refers  to  the  gospel  as  he 
preached  it  (II.  Cor.  xi.,  4;  Gal.  i.,  6,  11;  ii.,  2). 

Three  other  times,  as  though,  in  thought, 
joining  his  colaborers  with  himself,  he  uses  the 
phrase  "our  gospel"  (II.  Cor.  iv.,  3;  I.  Thess.  i., 
5;  II.  Thess.  ii.,  14). 

In  Galatians  ii.,  7,  he  draws  a  marked  distinction 
between  his  own  Gentile  gospel  and  Peter's 
Jewish  gospel. 

What  did  he  mean  by  these  expressions?  Why 
did  he  use  them?  Evidently  not  in  antagonism 
to  "the  gospel  of  Christ";  his  frequent  and  rever- 
ent use  of  this  phrase  precludes  any  such  con- 
clusion. The  purpose  of  both  was  the  same — the 
salvation  of  a  sinful  race;  the  means  was  the  same 
— righteousness  of  life  through  faith  in  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  as  the  Saviour  and  Redeemer  of  men. 
Both  came  from  the  same  source;  both  pervaded 
the  same  time  and  the  same  humanity;  both 

45 


46  The  Gospel  of  Paul 

finally  merge  into  the  same  eternity.  So  far,  the 
gospel  preached  by  Paul  and  that  preached  by 
the  Twelve  were  at  one. 

But  there  was  a  difference  somewhere,  and  a 
difference  worth  talking  about,  or  we  may  be  sure 
that  Paul  would  not  so  have  spoken.  And  if  he 
formulated  and  preached  a  gospel  for  the  Gentiles, 
it  may  be  important  to  us  to  know  what  it  is ;  for 
we  all  belong  in  that  class. 

I.  So  far  as  existing  records  show,  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Twelve,  at  least  during  the  period  of 
Paul's  missionary  life,  was  confined  mainly,  if  not 
entirely,  to  the  Jews,  that  is,  to  efforts  on  the  part 
of  the  Twelve  to  convert  their  fellow-citizens  of 
that  obstinate  and  bigoted  race  (Acts  xi.,  19). 
To  this  end,  the  best  line  of  argument  they  could 
pursue,  and  in  fact  almost  the  only  arguments  they 
cotild  advance  with  any  persuasive  effect,  were 
based  on  the  idea  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the 
fulfilment  of  the  Messianic  prophecies  (Acts  ii., 
16-36),  in  the  truth  of  which  they  already  believed  ; 
for  if  He  was  not  their  predicted  Messiah,  then  the 
Jews  could  have  no  further  interest  in  Him. 
Their  Sanhedrin,  the  court  which,  by  divine 
appointment,  as  they  were  taught  and  believed, 
was  the  final  arbiter  in  all  matters  of  religion,  had 
decided  that  He  was  an  impostor.  That  was  the 
end  of  the  argument  with  the  orthodox  Jew,  unless 
it  could  be  shown,  and  shown  conclusively,  that 
the  Sanhedrin  had  misjudged  the  case.  This 
latter  proposition  was  an  essential  part  of  the 


The  Gospel  of  Paul  47 

argiiment,  or  of  the  gospel  which  was  preached 
by  the  Twelve  (Acts  iii.,  14-26).  Paul  made 
use  of  the  same  argument  from  prophecy  on  the 
few  occasions  when  he  is  reported  as  addressing 
a  Jewish  audience  (Acts  xiii.,  22-41). 

But  by  far  the  larger  part  of  Paul's  labors  was 
in  efforts  to  Christianize,  not  the  Jews,  but  the 
Gentiles,  or,  as  we  now  express  it,  the  heathen ;  for 
at  that  day  all  Gentiles  came  within  our  modem 
definition  of  heathen.  Universally  they  worshiped 
false  gods,  or  no  gods  at  all. 

But  the  Messianic  argimient  had  no  force  with 
the  Gentiles.  They  were  totally  ignorant  of  the 
Jewish  prophecies,  and  cared  nothing  for  them — 
no  more  than  we  care  for  the  Koran  of  Mohammed 
or  the  mythical  gold  plates  of  Joseph  Smith. 
Suppose  the  prophecies  were  true — what  was  that 
to  them?  These  prophecies  were  all  distinctively 
JeT\dsh  and,  following  their  exact  language,  they 
were  to  find  their  anticipated  consummation  in 
the  glory  and  prosperity  of  the  Jewish  people.  In 
those  matters  the  Gentiles  had  no  interest  what- 
ever. The  argument  from  Jewish  prophecy  would 
have  no  more  persuasive  effect  on  Gentile  minds 
than  a  strictly  Mormon  argument  now  has  on  ours. 

Consequently  Paul,  in  respect  of  the  gospel 
that  he  purposed  to  preach  to  the  Gentiles,  was 
compelled  to  work  out  or  formulate  an  entirely 
different  Hne  of  argument,  the  argument  from 
prophecy  being  of  no  force  whatever. 

2.     Besides  this,  he  had  not  only  an  entirely 


48  The  Gospel  of  Paul 

different  class  of  people  to  deal  with,  but  a  differ- 
ent class  of  minds,  and  especially  a  different 
system  of  religious  thought.  In  the  Gentile 
beliefs  of  that  day,  morality  constituted  no  part 
of  religion  or  of  religious  obligation.  If  a  man 
rendered  to  his  chosen  deity  or  deities  the  required 
formal  acts  of  sacrifice,  observed  the  regular 
feast-days,  repeated  the  prescribed  formulas  of 
prayer  or  invocation  in  the  specified  ways  and 
forms,  abstained  from  desecrations  of  the  temples, 
etc.,  he  might  be  as  immoral  in  actual  life  as  he 
pleased,  without  giving  offense  to  his  deity. 
Wrong-doing  might  be  an  offense  as  against  a 
neighbor,  or  might  involve  a  violation  of  the  laws 
of  the  empire,  and  in  either  case  might  meet  with 
proper  punishment  at  the  hands  of  the  civil 
magistrate;  or,  in  localities  where  the  standard  of 
morals  was  unusually  high,  it  might  affect  one's 
standing  in  good  society;  but  no  element  of 
religious  duty  or  obligation  would  be  affected  by  it. 
The  gods  of  heathenism  were  not  generally  under- 
stood as  caring  aught  for  the  morals  of  their 
worshipers;  for  as  a  rule  they  were  immoral 
themselves. 

Now,  in  Judaism,  good  morals  constituted  a 
part  of  reHgion,  and  always  had.  Hence,  in  the 
gospel  of  the  Twelve,  as  preached  to  a  Jewish 
audience,  this  was  not  one  of  the  truths  necessary 
to  be  inculcated  as  an  essential  preliminary  to 
conversion.     It  was  believed  already. 

But  the  gospel  for  a  Gentile  audience  must 


The  Gospel  of  Paul  49 

include  this  as  an  essential  rule  both  of  faith  and 
practice.  The  Gentiles  had  to  be  taught  up  to  the 
point  of  conviction  (and  this  took  a  long  time) 
what  they  did  not  at  first  believe  and  never  had 
believed,  that  good  morals,  pure  lives,  and  holy 
living  were  essential  elements  of  religion. 

Consequently  Paul,  as  the  leader  and  pioneer 
in  the  work  of  converting  the  Gentiles,  had  to 
formulate  and  preach  a  gospel  which  was,  in  this 
respect  at  least,  different  from  that  preached  by 
the  Twelve  to  the  Jews.  But  it  must  be  a  gospel 
that  would  include  the  Jews,  for  otherwise  it  could 
not  be  universal.  So  far  as  existing  records  show, 
Paul  was  the  first  to  formulate  such  a  gospel,  that 
is,  the  gospel  of  universal  religion,  good  for  Jew 
and  Gentile  alike,  and  for  "all  sorts  and  conditions 
of  men"  of  each  class. 

3.  One,  and  perhaps  the  chief,  difference  be- 
tween Paul's  gospel,  and  that  which  was  not  his 
(Gal.  i.,  6,  7)  was  that  the  former  involved  and 
included  a  repudiation  of  the  Mosaic  law  as  then 
understood  and  taught  by  the  Jewish  church. 
An  aggressive  and  influential  section  of  the  mother 
church  of  Jerusalem  insisted  that  compliance 
with  the  Mosaic  law,  especially  as  regards  the 
odious  rite  of  circumcision,  was  an  essential  pre- 
requisite to  membership  in  the  Christian  church; 
and  a  vigorous  effort  was  made  to  impose  the 
unendurable  burdens  of  that  law  (Acts  xv.,  10) 
on  the  consciences  of  Paul's  Gentile  converts. 
This  movement,  if  successful,  would  have  made 


50  The  Gospel  of  Paul 

Christianity  a  mere  adjunct  or  sect  of  Judaism, 
and  the  effort  to  found  a  church  of  the  Gentiles — 
the  church  to  which  we  belong — would  have  been  a 
total  failure.  To  defeat  this  movement,  and  to 
free  the  churches  of  his  planting  from  a  fatal 
bondage  to  Judaism,  Paul  practically  repudiated 
(see  Galatians;  Rom.  iii.,  20;  Col.  ii.,  16  et  seq.) 
the  whole  Mosaic  system,  though  of  course  not  in 
its  code  of  morals;  for  good  morals  are  more 
essentially  a  part  of  Christianity  than  of  any  other 
religion  that  ever  was  known.  But  when  Paul 
did  this,  he  established  a  very  important  and  in 
fact  a  vital  difference  between  the  gospel  which  he 
preached,  and  that  of  his  Judaic  opponents. 

And  the  difference  consisted  in  this:  that  while 
their  gospel  was  only  for  the  Jews  and  such  occa- 
sional proselytes  from  the  Gentiles  as  could  be 
picked  up  here  and  there,  Paul's  gospel  was  for  all 
humanity.  Paul  was  the  first  man  who  ever 
preached  a  gospel  of  that  kind  in  such  a  way  as  to 
secure  general  acceptance.  When  this  was  done> 
and  not  before,  the  salvation  of  the  race  from  the 
effects  of  the  fall  became  possible. 

4.  While  I  am  not  sure  that  such  is  the  case,  I 
am  strongly  inclined  to  think  that  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  contains  a  special  adaptation  of 
Paul's  gospel  to  Jewish  minds  or  Jewish  modes  of 
thinking.  Clearly  Paul  was  not  its  author  {cf. 
Gal.  i.,  12,  Heb.  ii.,  3),  but  it  plainly  was  written 
by  an  educated  Jewish  convert  of  high  spiritual 
attainments  and  great  mental  ability.     Apollos 


The  Gospel  of  Paul  51 

answers  best  to  its  requirements  (Acts  xviii.,. 
24-28).  Some  critics  of  high  rank  give  Barnabas' 
the  credit.  But  whoever  wrote  it,  it  was  written 
solely  for  Jewish  readers.  The  wants  and  inter- 
ests of  the  Gentiles  did  not  come  at  all  within  the 
writer's  field  of  view.  With  or  for  them  he  shows 
no  concern  whatever.  The  Christian  system,  as  he 
thus  presents  it  from  a  Christo- Judaic  standpoint, 
differs  from  Paul's  delineation  of  it  chiefly  (i)  in 
respect  of  faith,  and  (2)  in  respect  of  Christ  as  a 
sacrifice. 

(i)  As  to  the  first  difference,  the  faith  in 
Christ  sketched  in  Hebrews  is  the  same  m  kind 
as  that  which  the  Jew  had  always  been  taught  to 
exercise  in  Jehovah  his  king — that  is,  the  faith  of 
confident  trust  and  reliance  in  the  truth  of  promises 
made,  and  a  faith  followed  by  corresponding  acts 
or  deeds.  But  faith  as  Paul  sets  it  forth  is  of  a 
much  higher  kind  in  that  it  is  perfected  or  fully 
attained  only  when  Christ  dwells  in  the  hearts  of 
His  people  and  they  dwell  in  Him,  so  producing 
oneness  of  life  in  and  through  Him,  whereby  they 
become  sons  of  God.  This  latter  conception  of 
faith  is  scarcely  foimd  in  Hebrews  at  all,  but  it 
probably  constituted  one  of  the  distinctive  features 
of  Paul's  gospel. 

(2)  As  to  the  other  difference,  it  is  clear  that 
the  writer  of  Hebrews  carried  forward  into  the 
Christian  atonement,  the  propitiatory  idea  which 
lay  at  the  basis  of  the  old  Mosaic  system  of  sacri- 
fice— the  idea  that  God  was  a  Being  who  had  to  be 


52  The  Gospel  of  Paul 

propitiated;  that  is,  His  anger  must  be  placated 
or  His  favor  secured;  or,  in  other  words,  that  He 
had  to  be  reconciled  to  us;  and  that  this  was 
effected  in  and  by  the  sacrifice  on  Calvary.  But 
Paul's  view  is  directly  the  reverse — that  Christ's 
atoning  work  was  to  reconcile  us  to  Him;  that  God 
was  already  reconciled  and  always  had  been;  that 
men,  humanity,  had  become  alienated  by  sin, 
and  must  be  brought  back  to  a  state  or  condition 
of  reconciliation  with  God,  so  that  through  faith 
and  righteousness  they  might  be  remade  or  made 
over,  and  thereby  become  acceptable  to  Him,  and 
fit,  as  it  were,  to  come  into  His  presence,  and 
eventually  grow  up  into  sons  of  God.  In  this  view 
of  the  atonement,  Paul's  gospel  appears  to  have 
been  distinctively  his  own. 

From  these  considerations  it  appears  that  the 
writer  of  Hebrews  regarded  Christianity  as  the 
outgrowth  and  perfected  development  of  a  still 
existing  Judaism;  whereas,  according  to  Paul, 
Christianity  superseded  Judaism  —  aboHshed  it 
and  took  its  place. 

Whether  these  two  views  of  Christianity  are, 
for  our  purposes,  irreconcilably  at  variance  is  a 
question  for  separate  consideration.  In  my 
opinion,  they  are  not;  but  if  they  are,  then  I  feel 
bound  to  follow  Paul:  he  wrote  for  the  Gentiles, 
and  we  come  in  that  class.  The  writer  of  Hebrews 
wrote  for  the  Jews,  who  come  in  another  class. 

It  is  true  that  after  Paul's  death  (about  a.d.  67 
or  68),   and  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 


The  Gospel  of  Paul  53 

(a.d.  70) — with  which  event  the  mother  church  was 
largely  shorn  of  its  power  and  influence — the  gos- 
pel of  Paul  came  to  be  generally  accepted  in  and 
by  the  church  at  large.  Peter  a  few  years  later 
(as  indicated  in  his  epistles  to  the  Jews  of  the 
dispersion)  had  come  to  adopt  most  of  Paul's 
ideas  and  some  of  his  peculiar  phrases  as  well. 
That  he  had  read  some  of  Paiil's  epistles,  clearly 
appears  from  II.  Pet.  iii.,  15,  16.  That  he  found 
therein  some  things  "hard  to  be  understood,'* 
need  be  no  matter  of  surprise.  I  doubt  if  the  man 
has  yet  been  bom  who  can  take  in,  apprehend,  and 
comprehend  to  its  full  extent,  Paul's  conception  of 
Christianity.  Nor  does  it  count  to  the  discredit 
of  Peter  that  he  sometimes  found  it  difficult  to 
fathom  the  depth  of  Paul's  meaning.  He  pos- 
sessed neither  Paul's  natural  abilities  nor  his 
education  and  mental  training,  and  in  respect  of 
spiritual  power  he  doubtless  was  Paul's  inferior. 
For  while  it  was  no  small  honor  to  be  allowed  to 
witness,  as  Peter  did,  the  theophany  of  the  trans- 
figuration (Luke  ix.,  28-36),  it  was  a  far  higher 
honor  to  be  accorded,  as  Paul  was,  a  view  of  the  ce- 
lestial glories  of  the  third  heaven  (II.  Cor.  xii.,  1-4.) 
And  if,  as  seems  highly  probable,  the  beatific  honor 
thus  conferred  on  each  be  a  divinely  indicated 
measure  of  the  spiritual  attainments  of  each,  then 
Paul,  spiritually,  outranked  Peter  by  far,  and  is 
without  a  peer  among  men;  and  his  competence 
to  formulate  a  gospel  of  his  own  for  the  evangeliza- 
tion of  the  Gentiles  cannot  be  called  in  question. 


54  The  Gospel  of  Paul 

5.  When  Paul,  as  he  said  in  his  first  letter  to 
the  Corinthians,  ''determined  not  to  know  any- 
thing among"  them  "save  Jesus  Christ,  and  Him 
crucified"  (I.  Cor.  ii.,  2),  he  apparently  then 
adopted  some  new  rule  or  practice  in  at  least  the 
particular  order  in  which  he  would  present  to 
them  the  essential  truths  of  the  new  Christian 
faith.  At  this  time  he  had  been  engaged  in  his 
ministry  to  the  Gentiles  for  nearly  twenty  years. 
Doubtless  he  had  learned  something  by  practical 
experience  as  to  the  best  way  in  which  to  bring 
the  Gospel  to  bear  effectively  on  the  minds  and 
lives  of  those  who,  like  the  Gentiles  of  that  day, 
had  been  trained  in  the  debased  and  debasing 
religions  of  heathenism.  It  is,  I  think,  fairly 
inferable  that  to  the  Galatian  churches  he  had 
been  preaching  the  gospel  of  faith  (Gal.  iii.); 
.and  to  the  Thessalonians  the  gospel  of  the  second 
advent  (I.  Thess.  iv.,  13  et  seq.).  For  some  reason  or 
reasons  which  we  can  only  surmise,  he  appears, 
on  opening  his  Gentile  work  at  Corinth,  to  have 
relegated  these  elements  of  the  new  religion  to  a 
subordinate  position,  or  to  have  left  them  some- 
what in  the  background.  John  the  Baptist  had 
preached  the  gospel  of  repentance  (Matt,  iii.,  1,2); 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  had  done  the  same  (Matt,  iv., 
17) ;  so  had  Peter  and  the  Twelve  after  the  resiurec- 
tion  (Acts  ii.,  38) ;  but  all  this  was  to  Jewish  hearers. 

Possibly  Paul  had  now  found  by  experience  that 
the  doctrines  of  repentance  and  faith — both  in- 
volving spiritual  experiences  and  activities — were 


The  Gospel  of  Paul  55 

too  difficult  of  apprehension  on  the  part  of  his 
unspiritual  Gentile  hearers.  It  is  not  easy  for  us 
to  understand  them  even  yet.  Only  the  spiritual 
man  understands  spiritual  things  (I.  Cor.  ii.,  14, 
15),  and  those  who  all  their  lives  had  been  votaries 
of  Diana  and  Jupiter  and  the  lesser  deities  of 
idolatry  were  anything  but  spiritual:  they  were 
strictly  ''carnal"  through  and  through,  and  in 
their  lives  were  generally  addicted  to  the  practice 
of  the  lowest  and  most  debasing  immoralities 
(Rom.  i.,  24-32).  Could  the  Gospel  be  presented 
to  them  from  some  other  standpoint,  whereby  it 
would  or  might  be  made  to  take  immediate  hold 
on  the  minds  and  lives  of  hearers  of  this  class? 
Apparently  Paul  thought  so;  and  thereupon  he 
commenced  preaching  to  the  Corinthian  Gentiles 
the  gospel  of  a  Person,  Jesus  the  Christ,  and  ''Him 
crucified"  as  the  Redeemer  of  men.  Of  course, 
this  gospel  of  a  Person  included  a  gospel  of  re- 
pentance and  a  gospel  of  faith,  but  these  two  were 
derivative  and  not  primary.  Both  rested  on  a 
Person — what  He  was,  said,  and  did — so  that  the 
personal  element,  in  Paul's  thought,  became  the 
fundamental  truth  to  be  primarily  presented. 
This  tnath  being  well  apprehended,  the  other 
essential  elements  of  the  new  reHgion  could 
be  taught  with  reasonable  hope  of  success 
(Heb.  vi.,  i). 

Now,  it  is  a  fact  that  ideas,  principles,  and  rules 
of  action  in  society,  church,  and  state,  are  made 
most  forcibly  and  persuasively  effective  in  con- 


56  The  Gospel  of  Paul 

vincing  the  human  mind  when  they  are  embodied 
in  and  illustrated  by  the  life  of  some  representative 
person  or  individual. 

For  example;  when  we  wish  to  teach  the  evils 
of  inordinate  ambition,  we  can  most  effectively 
and  convincingly  do  so  by  illustrations  from  the 
life  and  career  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte.  That  our 
children  may  learn  to  execrate  a  traitor,  we  tell 
them  of  Judas  Iscariot  and  Benedict  Arnold. 
Our  highest  lessons  of  patriotism  are  deduced  from 
the  person  and  life  of  Washington.  The  integrity 
of  our  Union  is  personified  in  Abraham  Lincoln; 
Mormonism,  in  Brigham  Young;  Methodism,  in 
the  Wesleys;  Presbyterian  theology,  in  John 
Calvin.  For  a  pure  and  perfect  Christianity, 
there  is  and  can  be  no  higher  manifestation  than 
in  the  person  and  life  of  the  Carpenter  of  Galilee. 
He  who  understands  Him  knows  the  whole  of  prac- 
tical religion ;  he  who  lives  as  He  lived  is  a  saint. 

It  is  much  easier  to  teach  and  understand  a 
perfect  life  than  a  perfect  doctrine.  Ordinarily 
the  latter  appeals  only  to  the  intellect ;  the  former 
reaches  the  heart  and  all  the  human  sympathies. 
And  the  more  nearly  the  person  is  like  unto  us,  the 
more  powerfully  are  we  influenced  by  his  life. 
Thus  it  was  that  ''it  behooved  Him  in  all  things  to 
be  made  like  unto  His  brethren"  (Heb.  ii.,  17), 
so  that  the  power  of  His  life  and  personality, 
entering  into  the  hearts  and  Hves  of  the  members  of 
the  lost  humanity,  might  become  efficacious  unto 
their  redemption. 


The  Gospel  of  Paul  57 

Hence,  if  I  correctly  understand  the  meaning  of 
I.  Corinthians  ii.,  2,  Paul's  gospel  was  distinctively 
the  gospel  of  a  Person,  Jesus  the  Christ,  and  of 
*'Him  crucified, "  that  is,  as  the  Redeemer  of  men. 
These  were  his  two  and  only  two  f imdamentals ; 
everything  else  in  Christianity  was  derivative 
therefrom. 

It  is  no  part  of  my  present  purpose  to  summarize 
the  gospel  of  Paul  in  its  entirety,  for  I  could  not  do 
it  if  I  would,  but  only  to  point  out  the  more  salient 
features  wherein  it  differed  in  formal  statement  or 
otherwise  from  that  of  the  Twelve.  And  here  it 
may  also  be  noted  that  though  Paul  scarcely  ever 
refers  in  set  terms  to  the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth, 
such  doctrine  is  in  fact  involved  in  his  figure  of  a 
death  unto  sin  (Rom.  vi.,  11),  and  a  resurrected 
life  unto  righteousness  (verse  13).  Some  thirty 
or  forty  years  later,  the  apostle  John,  by  formal 
statement  in  the  words  of  the  Master,  made  this 
doctrine  the  basis  of  his  Gospel  (John  iii.,  1-12); 
but,  so  far  as  existing  records  go,  Paul  was  the 
first  to  put  it  in  form  and  force  as  an  element  in 
the  work  of  saving  men.  So  that  in  all  the  re- 
spects named,  and  perhaps  in  some  others,  his 
Gospel  was  new,  and  he  had  a  good  right  to  call  it 
his  own.  Of  course  he  got  it  from  the  Master, 
and  so  he  tells  us  (Gal.  i.,  12) ;  but,  according  to  the 
records,  he  was  the  first  fully  to  apprehend  it  in 
its  length  and  breadth,  and  the  first  practically  to 
utilize  it  in  general  evangelical  work.  When  he 
did  this,   he  created  or  formulated  a  universal 


58  The  Gospel  of  Paul 

religion,  a  religion  for  humanity,  a  religion  capable 
of  saving  the  entire  race — and  he  is  the  only  son  of 
Adam  of  whom  that  can  be  said. 

It  is  greatly  to  be  regretted  that  Christianity  has 
failed  to  keep  itself  free  of  Judaism  as  Paul  intend- 
ed and  taught.  Certain  Jewish  theories  of  sacri- 
fice, expiation,  and  atonement,  borrowed  in  part 
from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  but  more  largely 
from  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  theories  of 
mediation  by  a  priesthood,  have  become  imbedded 
in  the  creeds  or  beliefs  of  many  of  the  numerous 
branches  of  the  Christian  church.  These  theories 
are  not  taught  in  the  writings  of  Paul,  nor  in  any 
of  the  four  Gospels.  Also  the  law  of  Sabbatical 
observance,  as  adopted  by  most  of  the  Protestant 
churches  of  America,  is  strictly  Judaic,  or  Mosaic, 
and  not  Pauline.  The  name  ''Sabbath"  is  itself 
Mosaic  (or,  more  probably,  it  came  from  heathen 
Babylon),  and  as  used  by  us  it  is  a  misnomer.  In 
the  early  apostolic  age,  what  we  now  know  as  the 
Sabbath,  or  Sunday,  was  called  the  first  day  (Acts 
XX.,  7),  as  the  unorthodox  Quakers  still  call  it; 
and  at  the  close  of  the  century  it  was  known  as  the 
Lord's  day  (Rev.  i.,  10) — a  name  now  chiefly  used 
by  the  Disciples  of  Christ,  another  unorthodox 
body,  or  so  regarded.  Christianity  will  not  reach 
its  perfection  until  we  learn  to  think  less  of  Moses 
and  his  system  of  legalism,  and  more  of  Paul 
and  his  gospel;  for  in  matters  of  revealed  religion 
Paul  is  a  higher  authority  than  Moses. 


A  JAPHETIC  GOSPEL 

When  Paul,  under  divine  guidance,  crossed 
over  from  Asia  Minor  into  Greece  (Acts  xvi.,  6-10) 
and  undertook  to  Christianize  the  sons  of  Japheth, 
he  appears  soon  to  have  discovered  that  he  had 
on  his  hands  what  we  now  call  "a  new  proposition." 
The  learned  philosophers  of  Athens  simply  laughed 
him  out  of  that  city  (Acts  xvii.,  32).  What  he 
said  was  to  them  too  absurd  for  reply  or  even  for 
serious  thought.  So  also  to  the  Japhetic  Gentiles 
of  Corinth;  even  after  he  had  preached  there  for  a 
year  and  a  half  (Acts  xviii.,  11)  his  preaching  was 
still  naught  but  "foolishness,"  and  he  so  tells  us 
(I.  Cor.  i.,  23).  And  even  to  the  Japhetic  converts 
at  Rome  he  had  to  protest  that  his  gospel  was 
nothing  to  be  "ashamed"  of  (Rom.  i.,  16)  much 
as  though,  imder  or  in  view  of  the  public  derision 
to  which  they  were  subjected,  they  were  half 
ashamed  of  it  themselves,  and  thought  that  he 
ought  to  be  so  too. 

Nor  is  such  a  state  of  things  at  all  difficult  to 
account  for.  As  respects  their  established  beliefs, 
the  Semitic  races  of  Western  Asia  ordinarily  cared 
nothing  for  the  reason  why;  if  they  were  satisfied, 
-or  assured  by  those  who  were  in  authority  and 

59 


6o  A  Japhetic  Gospel 

were  supposed  to  know,  that  this  or  that  was  so, 
they  usually  inquired  no  farther.  Their  habitual 
modes  of  thinking  did  not  take  them  into  the 
reason  of  things.  It  was  enough  for  them  that 
God  made  the  world;  but  whether  He  made  it  by 
a  single  creative  act,  or  by  a  series  of  such  acts 
running  through  six  ordinary  days,  or  by  a  slow 
process  of  evolution  during  millions  of  years,  was 
with  them  a  matter  of  no  consequence.  The 
accoimt  which  they  received  described  it  as  a  six- 
days'  work;  they  accepted  the  statement,  adopted 
it  as  a  settled  article  of  belief,  and  neither  asked 
any  questions  nor  entertained  any  doubts  as  to  its 
literal  acciu-acy. 

The  Japhetic  mind,  on  the  other  hand,  if  not 
differently  constituted,  is  at  least  differently 
trained.  As  a  general  rule,  it  accepts  nothing 
as  certain  (except  provisionally,  or  as  a  "working 
theory")  unless  it  can  be  demonstrated  to  the 
physical  senses  as  a  fact,  or  else  can  be  shown  by  a 
plausible  and  credible  line  of  reasoning  to  be  at 
least  probably  true.  When  Paul  visited  Athens  and 
Corinth,  he  came  in  contact  with  a  class  of  men 
who  thought  and  reasoned  along  those  lines. 
With  them,  authority  in  matters  of  religion,  duty, 
and  obligation  did  not  count,  as  it  did  among  the 
sons  of  Shem.  When,  for  example,  resurrection 
of  the  dead  was  preached  as  one  of  the  tenets  of 
the  new  reHgion,  the  Japhetic  thinkers  of  Corinth 
promptly  asked:  ''How  are  the  dead  raised?  and 
with  what  manner  of  body  do  they  come?"  (I.  Cor. 


A  Japhetic  Gospel  6i 

XV.,  35) — evidently  implying  that  the  objections 
thus  raised  were  unanswerable,  and  that  this 
particular    teaching    was    not    worthy    of   belief. 

Numerous  other  facts  and  illustrations  to  the 
same  effect  might  be  given,  but  regarding  these  as 
sufficient,  they  would  seem  to  justify  the  conclusion 
that  when  Paul  undertook  to  Christianize  the  sons 
of  Japheth  he  presently  discovered  the  necessity  of 
formulating  and  elaborating,  especially  for  them, 
a  systematic  statement  of  the  Christian  faith  such 
as,  lying  along  or  conforming  to  their  lines  of 
thought,  would  demonstrate  to  them  its  credibility, 
and  bring  it  within  the  bounds  of  their  acceptance. 
Nor  was  it  an  easy  work.  A  very  long  line  of 
devout  thinking  and  spiritual  experience  inter- 
vened between  the  teaching  of  ''Christ  crucified" 
(I.  Cor.  ii.,  2)  as  a  starting-point  and  the  final 
consummation  in  the  unknown  future  (and  in  an 
unknown  world  as  well),  ''when  this  mortal  shall 
have  put  on  immortalit}^ "  (I.  Cor.  xv.,  54) .  Those 
two  things  were  a  great  way  apart.  The  Semites 
could  easily  jump  the  chasm  that  lay  between; 
but  not  so  the  sons  of  Japheth.  For  them  a  road 
had  to  be  built,  or  a  highway  cast  up,  along  which 
they  could  travel,  mentally  and  spiritually,  before 
they  generally  would  even  begin  the  journey. 

Paul  built  the  road;  and  as  our  best  BibHcal 
scholars  are  generally  agreed  that  no  other  part  of 
the  New  Testament,  that  is,  outside  of  what  he 
wrote,  had  then  been  written,  we  must  conclude 
that  he  did  so  without  aid  from  any  human  source. 


62  A  Japhetic  Gospel 

The  mile-posts  and  guide-boards  which  mark  the 
line  of  that  road  will  be  found  for  the  most  part 
in  the  three  letters  that  he  wrote  to  the  Japhetic 
churches  of  Corinth  and  Rome;  and  I  think  it 
possible  that  we  have  therein  a  considerable 
portion  of  what  he  included  in  the  phrase  "my 
gospel" — and  a  gospel  specially  formulated  for 
the  incredulous  intellects  of  the  sons  of  Japheth, 
the  race  to  which  we  belong. 

To  follow  that  road  and  learn  to  know  it  prac- 
tically and  thoroughly,  we  need  travel  it  only 
once,  but  this  is  the  work  of  a  lifetime,  for  the 
angel  of  death  stands  at  the  other  end.  But  we 
may  take  a  brief  survey  of  it,  note  its  stations, 
and  learn  something  of  what  Paul  did. 

I.  The  starting-point  or  beginning  of  the  road 
is  outlined  in  his  first  reported  speech  on  Japhetic 
soil  (Acts  xvii.,  22-31),  where  he  carefully  dis- 
tinguishes the  God  in  whose  name  he  speaks — 
"an  unknown  god,"  at  least  to  them — ^from  the 
multitudinous  gods  of  their  heathenish  idolatries, 
and  sets  Him  forth  as  the  Creator  and  Ruler  of 
the  Universe,  and  as  the  Father  of  all  the  races  of 
men.  Naturally  his  hearers  would  understand 
that  they  were  included;  and  this  obviously  was 
an  important  fact  which  he  wished  them  to  learn. 

On  leaving  Athens  he  went  directly  to  Corinth, 
which  at  that  time  was  probably  the  chief  center 
of  Japhetic  art,  science,  and  philosophy,  for  Athens 
was  in  its  decline.  Here,  according  to  his  own 
statement  (I.  Cor.  ii.,  2),  he  adopted  as  the  basis 


A  Japhetic  Gospel  63 

and  substance  of  his  preaching  the  gospel  of  a 
Person — ''Jesus  Christ,  and  Him  crucified."  As 
to  this  I  have  already  expressed  my  understanding. 
This  Jesus  Christ,  in  Paul's  apprehension  of  Him, 
was  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  the  manifestation  of 
God  to  men,  and  the  Saviour  and  Redeemer  of 
humanity  (Rom.  xvi.,  25-27;  I.  Tim.,  iv.,  9,  10). 

Another  fact  which  lies  at  the  beginning  of 
Paul's  gospel  was  the  great  and  terrible  fact  of 
sin — that  all  men  everywhere,  of  every  race  and 
through  all  time,  had  been  and  then  were  so  per- 
vaded and  saturated  with  sin,  and  so  dominated 
by  it  in  their  thoughts  and  lives,  that  they  were 
in  awful  need  of  aid,  and  of  such  powerful  and 
efficient  aid  as  should  suffice  to  take  them  out  of 
that  state  or  condition,  and  make  them  over  into 
something  purer  and  better — something  fit  for 
the    Master's  use    (Rom.  iii.,  9-20;    v.,   12-14). 

Death  was  another  horrible  fact;  but  when  sin 
came  to  an  end,  death  would  be  destroyed  (I.  Cor. 
XV.,  54-57). 

2.  But  how  does  this  Person,  this  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  who  is  now  in  some  distant  heaven, 
come  into  such  personal  relationship  with  the 
individual  believer  here  on  earth  as  to  give  him  any 
efficient  aid  in  this,  his  great  moral  emergency? 
Paul  answers  that  it  is  by  means  of,  or  through 
the  exercise  of,  faith  in  Him,  as  though  this  were 
a  sort  of  connecting-link  between  man  and  his 
Redeemer  (Rom.  iii.,  22). 

3.  But  this  faith  is  not  of  the  ordinary  variety. 


64  A  Japhetic  Gospel 

It  must,  to  be  good  for  anything,  possess  a  strength 
and  quality  that  will  dominate  the  life  of  the 
professed  believer,  and  produce  in  him  a  result 
which  Paul  calls  righteousness — which  clearly 
includes  pure,  holy,  and  upright  living  (Rom.  v., 
i-ii;  xii.,  9-21).  To  make  men  righteous  is, 
in  Paul's  conception,  the  aim  and  end  of  Chris- 
tianity (Rom.  i.,  17) ;  and  he  carefully  distinguishes 
this  righteousness  from,  and  contrasts  it  with,  the 
vile  and  debasing  immoralities  which  then  per- 
vaded Gentile  society  (Rom.  i.,  24-32),  as  well  as 
with  the  strictly  legal  morality  of  Judaism  (Rom. 
ii.,  17-29).  The  righteousness  which  Christianity 
thus  demands  of  its  adherents,  is  so  ineffabty 
superior  to  all  other,  that  it  is,  as  it  were,  divine; 
it  is  "of  God"  (Rom.  i.,  17). 

4.  This  righteousness — and  this  is  Paul's  next 
step  in  the  road  to  immortality — results  in  justifi- 
cation (Rom.  iii.,  28),  by  which  I  understand  him 
to  mean  a  state  or  condition  on  the  part  of  the 
individual  believer  in  which  God  is  willing  to  deal 
with  him  as  if  he  were  just  or  righteous — not 
because  he  is  so,  but  becauvse  he  is  honestly,  faith- 
fully, and  diligently  trying  to  be  so  (verses  23-26). 

5.  Next,  this  state  or  condition  of  justification 
brings  each  genuine  believer  into  a  relationship  of 
''peace  with  God"  (Rom.  v.,  i) —  it  is  obviously  a 
good  thing  to  be  at  peace  with  Him — and  also 
gives  him  ''access"  or  admission  to  the  enjoyment 
of  a  measure  or  degree  of  ''grace"  wherein  he  may 
thereafter  and  forever  "stand"  (verse  2),  for  he 


A  Japhetic  Gospel  65 

then,  by  divine  adoption  has  become  one  of  God's 
family  and  one  of  God's  heirs  (Rom.  viii.,  15-17). 
A  road  that  leads  to  such  results  is  certainly  a 
good  road  to  travel ;  and  no  son  of  Japheth  can  say 
that  the  waymarks  are  not  clear  and  distinct. 

6.  The  three  fundamental  elements  of  spiritual 
Hfe,  as  above  enumerated — faith,  righteousness, 
and  justification — when  properly  cultivated  and 
developed,  lead  unto  salvation  (Rom.  viii.,  14-17), 
a  salvation  which,  begun  here  (verses  10,  11), 
shall  finally,  by  the  portal  of  the  Resurrection 
(I.  Cor.  XV.,  42-44),  merge  in  another  life,  into  a 
glorious  immortality  (verses  50-57). 

This  is  the  end  of  the  road,  so  far  as  we  now  know 
it;  but  it  is  not  all  that  Paul  has  to  tell  us  about  it. 

7.  All  these  elements  of  spiritual  life — faith, 
righteousness,  justification,  adoption,  salvation, 
resurrection,  and  immortality — have  become  avail- 
able to  us  through  Jesus  Christ  as  a  gracious  gift 
bestowed  on  us  out  of  the  amplitude  and  abtmdance 
of  God's  mercy  and  love  to  us ;  that  is,  not  because 
we  were  entitled  to  them,  but  because  He  was 
graciously  pleased,  in  His  infinite  kindness,  to 
give  them  to  us;  and  such  was  His  loving  purpose 
from  all  eternity  (Rom.  viii.,  31-39;  Titus  i.,  2). 

8.  All  these  are  made  efficacious  in  us  and  for  us 
by  His  Spirit  (Rom.  viii.,  26,  2^)\  but  there  are 
sundry  other  experiences  that  belong  to  this  road. 

(i)  He  who  begins  with  faith  must  exercise 
repentance. 

(2)  If  he  would  walk  in  the  ways  of  righteous- 


66  A  Japhetic  Gospel 

ness,  he  must  leave  his  sins  behind ;  that  is,  forsake 
and  abandon  them,  and  not  try  to  take  them  along 
with  him. 

(3)  Progress  in  the  state  or  condition  known  as 
justification  leads  one  on  to  or  toward  a  state  or 
condition  of  sanctification ;  that  is,  toward  a  greater 
purity  of  thought  and  life,  or  toward  holiness. 

(4)  Then  he  who  has  journeyed  so  far  on  that 
road  as  to  attain  unto  "peace  with  God"  may 
consider  himself  to  be  "called"  or  "elected,"  and 
may  dwell  thereafter  in  that  spiritual  freedom 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free. 

9.  Sum  up  all  these  elements  of  spiritual  life 
and  experience,  add  them  together,  and  we  have: 

(i)  The  gospel  of  a  Person — faith  in  "Jesus 
Christ,  and  Him  crucified"  (I.  Cor.  ii.,  2) — worked 
out  and  elaborated  into  a  system  of  believing, 
living,  and  doing,  so  that  even  the  naturally 
skeptical  sons  of  Japheth  can  have  no  excuse  for 
refusing  to  hear,  believe,  and  obey. 

(2)  We  have  also  a  gospel  in  which,  as  concern- 
ing the  elements  thus  enumerated,  all  branches  of 
the  Christian  church  among  the  sons  of  Japheth 
are  substantially  agreed.  The  points  on  which  we 
disagree  and  divide  relate  almost  entirely  (a)  to 
forms  of  doctrinal  statement;  (b)  to  the  relative 
prominence  given  to  one  doctrine  as  related  to 
some  other ;  or  (c)  to  matters  of  church[govemment 
and  worship;  none  of  which,  under  the  teachings  of 
Paul,  are  essential  to  salvation,  or  for  membership 
in  the  church,  which  is  Christ's  body. 


A  Japhetic  Gospel  67 

(3)  Herein  we  have  a  perfect  gospel — perfect 
because  it  marks  out  and  shows  the  way  unto 
perfection. 

(4)  It  is  a  universal  gospel  because  it  not  only 
contains,  but  states  in  logical  order,  all  the  essen- 
tial principles  of  our  Christian  system  in  their 
hving  relationship  to  practical  life,  so  that  "all 
sorts  and  conditions  of  men"  may  find  therein 
everything  they  really  need  to  know. 

I  cannot  say  to  what  extent  this  Pauline  system 
of  thought,  thus  specially  formulated  for  the 
Japhetic  races,  should  be  employed  or  relied  on 
in  the  Christianization  of  such  totally  dissimilar 
races  as,  for  example,  the  Hamitic  of  Africa,  or  the 
Dravidian  of  India,  or  the  Mongolian  of  China,  all 
of  which  differ  from  us  much  more  than  we  differ 
from  the  sons  of  Shem.  But  from  what  little  I 
know  of  these  alien  races,  I  should  suppose  that 
Paul's  system  of  doctrine  or  teaching  (for  that  is 
what  doctrine  really  means)  would  be  to  them 
totally  incomprehensible;  that  they  coiild  not 
imderstand  it  if  they  would;  and,  possibly,  would 
not  if  they  could.  Nor  do  I  see  any  reason  why 
they  should  be  required  or  expected  to  understand 
it.  If,  as  clearly  appears  from  what  Paul  says, 
Christianity  has  but  one  fimdamental  principle, 
faith  in  ''Jesus  Christ,  and  Him  crucified,"  then 
I  can  see  no  reason  why  each  race  or  nation,  adopt- 
ing and  starting  with  that  basic  principle,  may  not 
well  be  allowed  to  develop  therefrom  and  formu- 
late for  itself  a  system  of  its  own  that  shall  lead 


68  A  Japhetic  Gospel 

to  the  same  end,  righteousness  in  this  Hfe  and 
immortality  in  the  next ;  or,  better  yet,  why  some 
man,  knowing  what  Christianity  is,  and  knowing 
what  the  race  or  nation  is,  and  having  gifts  some- 
what akin  to  those  which  Paul  possessed,  should 
not  do  it  for  them.  At  all  events,  I  feel  safe  in 
saying  that  no  now  existing  form  of  denominational 
Christianity  will  become  universal,  nor  will  any 
such  form  save  the  race.  If  Paul  had  been  led, 
under  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  into  China  instead  of 
being  led  into  Greece,  would  he  have  written  for 
the  Chinese  as  he  wrote  for  us?  Possibly  so; 
but  I  very  much  doubt  it. 


PAUL  AND  THE  EMPIRE 

My  knowledge  of  Paul  and  my  appreciation  of 
his  work  have  been  matters  of  growth,  and  per- 
haps of  a  rather  slow  growth.  Hence  it  is  only 
recently  that  I  have  come  to  notice  the  somewhat 
radical  differences  that  exist  between  Paul's  gospel 
and  that  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  of  which  I  shall 
say  more  presently.  If  we  took  chronology  for 
our  guide,  Paul's  letters,  instead  of  coming  along 
toward  the  end  of  the  New  Testament  record, 
would  stand  at  the  beginning,  and  would  be  ar- 
ranged in  a  very  different  order  from  that  which 
now  prevails.  The  two-  letters  to  the  Thessalonian 
converts  would  come  first;  then,  probably,  Gala- 
tians;  then  Corinthians  first  and  second;  then 
Romans;  all  probably  written  between  a.d.  52  and 
58.  About  three  years  later,  and  all  nearly  at  the 
same  time,  he  wrote  Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philip- 
pians,  and  Philemon.  Titus  and  I.  Timothy  may 
be  dated  about  a.d.  64,  and  II.  Timothy,  his 
latest  extant  letter,  about  a.d.  66. 

These  letters  contain  the  earliest  Christian 
literature  now  extant.  So  far  as  other  dates  are 
at  present  ascertainable,  all  his  epistles  except, 
possibly,  those  to  Titus  and  Timothy,  antedate  the 

69 


70  Paul  and  the  Empire 

earliest  of  the  four  Gospels,  and  there  is  no  clear 
indication  that  he  ever  read  any  of  these.  Accord- 
ingly, his  writings  show  that  he  had  but  little 
knowledge  of  the  former  teachings  and  miraculous 
works  of  Jesus  while  on  earth.  There  is  nothing 
to  indicate,  and  we  have  no  reason  to  believe,  that 
he  ever  saw  Christ  in  the  flesh,  or  that  prior  to  his 
conversion  he  regarded  Him  otherwise  than  as  an 
object  of  hatred  and  hostility.  He  quotes  His 
words  once,  and  only  once  (Acts  xx.,  35),  and  the 
original  of  this  quotation  is  lost.  Once  only  he 
cites  Him  as  an  authority  (I.  Cor.  ix.,  14).  Aside 
from  these  instances,  and  from  what  he  may  have 
learned  during  the  fifteen  days  spent  with  Peter  at 
Jerusalem  (Gal.  i.,  18),  his  knowledge  of  the  gospel 
he  preached  and  wrote,  came  to  him  by  direct 
revelation,  or  at  least  he  so  tells  us  (Gal.  i.,  11,  12). 
Consequently  his  teachings  were  not  based  on  our 
present  four-Gospel  records,  but  on  an  independent 
and  direct  revelation  made  personally  to  himself. 

Why  this  was  so,  we  are  not  advised,  but  doubt- 
less good  reasons  existed.  It  is  possible  that,  as 
Paul's  gospel  was  to  be,  at  least  primarily,  a  gospel 
to  and  for  the  Gentiles,  it  was  regarded  as  import- 
ant that  it  be  divested,  so  far  as  possible,  of  all  the 
elements  of  Judaism  as  Judaism  then  existed. 

It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  note  that  Paul  never  made, 
so  far  as  we  know,  any  systematic  or  general 
statement  of  the  substance  or  contents  of  the 
special  revelation  thus  made  by  him.  One  would 
naturally  suppose  that  he  would  not  have  failed 


Paul  and  the  Empire  71 

to  do  this,  especially  as  the  adherents  of  a  some- 
what divergent  gospel  were  at  one  time  seeking  to 
impose  that,  to  the  exclusion  of  his  own,  on  the 
churches  he  had  organized  (Gal.  ii.,  6-9) .  Perhaps 
his  failure  in  this  respect  arose  from  the  confident 
expectation  which  he  entertained  at  one  time 
that  Christ  the  Lord  would  very  soon  reappear 
(I.  Thess.  iv.,  15-17),  in  which  case  the  authority 
of  the  Lord  Himself  would  supersede  anything  that 
his  servants  might  write.  Hence  Paul  probably 
regarded  his  own  writings  as  ephemeral  in  charac- 
ter and  destined  to  be  short-lived. 

During  His  public  ministry,  Jesus  preached 
what  may  fairly  be  called  an  ideal  religion;  that 
is,  a  religion  perfect  in  its  principles,  and  also 
perfect  in  the  application  that  He  made  of  those 
principles  to  the  facts  of  daily  life,  and  as  thor- 
oughly perfect  as  a  millennial  state  of  existence 
can  possibly  require.  Thus,  he  taught  what  we  now 
know  as  a  community  of  goods,  or  the  duty  on  the 
part  of  the  rich  of  sharing  their  wealth  with  the 
poor  (Mark  x.,  17-27) ;  and  He  taught  it,  not  as  a 
distant  or  millennial  duty,  but  as  a  duty  then 
present,  and  of  immediate  binding  obligation. 
He  also  taught  (in  derogation  of  Moses)  an  ideal 
law  of  the  marriage  relation  (Matt,  xix.,  3-9), 
which  our  Protestant  churches  (except  the  Episco- 
pal) have  not  learned  to  enforce  or  live  up  to  even 
yet.  He  taught,  too,  a  law  of  love  which,  if  ap- 
plied as  between  master  and  slave,  would  have 
been  fatal  to  the  system  of  slavery  that  prevailed 


72  Paul  and  the  Empire 

everywhere  throughout  the  Roman  Empire.  And 
as  to  the  civil  governments  of  His  day,  He  seems 
to  have  regarded  them  generally  with  indifference 
(Matt,  xvii.,  25)  or  open  contempt  (Luke  xiii.,  31, 

32). 

Now,  when  Paul  undertook  the  work  of  convert- 
ing the  Gentiles,  and  in  that  work  came  to  apply 
Christian  principles  to  the  peculiar  conditions  of 
Gentile  life,  he  was  confronted  with  a  nimiber  of 
serious  problems.  Should  he  preach  as  Jesus  had 
done,  a  community  of  goods,  and  should  he 
imdertake  to  put  that  principle  in  force  in  the 
churches  which  he  gathered  here  and  there  among 
the  Gentile  provinces  of  the  empire,  such  work 
would  tend  to  unsettle  the  laws  of  property  in  the 
empire ;  and  out  in  the  provinces  Rome  allowed  no 
interference  with  her  laws.  If  he  should  teach  the 
Master's  law  of  love — "thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself" — he  must  so  teach  it  that  existing 
domestic  relations,  and  particularly  the  attitude  of 
the  slave  toward  his  master,  should  not  be  dis- 
turbed, for  this  would  certainly  tend  to  render  the 
slaves  restless  if  not  rebellious  against  the  brutal 
tyranny  under  which  they  suffered ;  and  here  again 
the  Roman  law  was  inexorable. 

Such  teachings  as  Jesus  gave  on  these  and  sundry 
other  strictly  mundane  affairs  might  do  very  well 
for  the  Jewish  people,  since  they  were  in  every 
sense  a  peculiar  people,  obstinately  fanatical  and 
difficult  to  manage,  so  that,  as  to  their  intercom- 
munal  relations,  they  were  left  to  do  pretty  much 


Paul  and  the  Empire  73 

as  they  pleased.  But  such  teachings  would  not  do 
in  the  Gentile  communities  that  made  up  the 
Roman  Empire.  The  preservation  of  order  was 
the  first  duty  of  a  provincial  magistrate,  and  Rome 
made  short  work  of  those  who  sought  to  break  up 
or  interfere  with  existing  civil  or  political  institu- 
tions. Immediate  arrest,  a  short  trial,  and  a  quick 
death  was  the  rule  for  such.  Hence  Paul  could 
not  preach  a  commimity  of  goods  among  the 
Gentiles.  No  more  could  he  release  the  wife  from 
slavish  obedience  to  the  commands  of  the  husband, 
no  matter  how  brutal  or  unjust  they  might  be 
(Col.  iii.,  1 8).  Slavery,  too,  he  was  compelled  to 
recognize  as  an  institution  that  must  at  least  be 
tolerated  (verse  22) ;  and  when  he  made  a  convert 
of  the  runaway  slave  Onesimus,  he  had  to  send  him 
back  to  his  owner,  for  to  keep  him  would  have 
been  stealing,  under  imperial  law.  He  could  not 
send  him  to  a  land  of  freedom,  for  there  was  none, 
nor  turn  him  loose  to  become  a  criminal  and  an 
outlaw.  Nor  could  Paul  say  anything  in  deroga- 
tion of  the  civil  government  or  of  the  existing 
rulers,  for  this  would  have  been  treason.  Any 
one  of  these  offenses  would  have  been  fatal  to  the 
cause.  Paul  would  have  been  put  to  death,  and 
likewise  every  person  affiliated  with  him,  and  the 
nascent  church,  at  least  among  the  Gentile  com- 
mimities,  would  have  been  wiped  out  at  the  very 
beginning.  For  the  church  was  not  yet  strong 
enough  either  to  nm  counter  to  the  laws  of  the 
empire  or  to  disregard  the  established  usages  of 


74  Paul  and  the  Empire 

the  provinces ;  neither  did  it  become  so  until  about 
two  or  three  centuries  later,  by  which  time  it  had 
secured  so  firm  a  foothold  and  so  commanding  an 
influence  that  the  empire  was  compelled  to  yield  to 
its  authority. 

I  cite  these  facts  simply  to  illustrate  the  other 
and  larger  fact  that  Paul  in  his  work,  from  its 
very  inception,  had  on  hand  the  very  large  problem 
of  adapting  the  ideal  teachings  of  the  Master  to 
the  then  existing  social,  civil,  and  political  condi- 
tions of  Gentile  life.  He  took  men,  life,  and 
society  as  he  found  them,  and  did  the  best  he 
could  to  make  them  better.  He  made  no  effort 
to  attain  unto  or  to  incorporate  into  the  Gentile 
church  the  high  idealism  of  the  Master  in  respect 
of  worldly  relations,  but  leaving  them  as  they  were, 
he  sought  to  sanctify  those  relations  and  to  make 
them  an  auxiliary  in  the  larger  work  of  saving 
souls.  If  he  could  not  safely  teach  a  community  of 
goods,  he  could  at  least  enjoin  on  his  converts  the 
duty  of  liberality  to  the  poor  (I.  Cor.  xvi.,  i,  2; 
Rom.  XV.,  26).  If  he  could  not  reform  the 
marriage  relation,  he  could  at  least  make  it  the 
duty  of  husbands  to  love  their  wives  (Eph.  v., 
25) — something  that  was  exceeding  rare  in  Gentile 
heathenism.  And  though  he  could  not  aboHsh 
slavery,  he  could  enjoin  on  the  slave-owner  the 
obligation  of  dealing  justly  with  his  slaves  (Col. 
iv.,  i);  for  it  was  true  then,  as  was  held  several 
centuries  later,  and  held  much  later  still  by  the 
highest  court  of  our  own  Christian  nation,  that 


Paul  and  the  Empire  75 

slaves  had  no  rights  which  their  owners  were 
bound  to  respect.  Paul  was  preeminently  a 
practical  man,  and  in  the  practical  work  of  found- 
ing, not  an  ideal,  but  a  practical  Christianity, 
he  accomplished  results  that  appear  likely  to  last 
till  the  millennium. 

Hence  the  work  of  translating  the  idealism  of 
Jesus  into  a  practicalism  that  would  render  it 
admissible  into  Gentile  life  and  surroundings, 
thus  securing  for  Christianity  a  permanent  foot- 
hold in  Gentile  communities,  was  at  once  a 
delicate  and  a  hazardous  undertaking.  None 
but  a  man  of  transcendent  genius  and  ability,  a 
man  of  profound  piety,  such  as  Paul  was,  could 
ever  have  accomplished  it.  But  for  his  Roman 
citizenship,  his  personal  safety  among  either  Jews 
or  Gentiles  would  have  been  nil.  But  for  his 
liberal  education  and  his  mental  and  spiritual 
power,  he  could  never  have  understood  the  essence 
and  substance  of  Christianity.  If  he  had  not 
been  an  honest  man — intellectually  honest — he 
would  not  have  yielded  to  the  influences  which 
made  him  a  Christian.  If  he  had  been  a  timid 
man,  he  never  would  have  pioneered  the  work  of 
the  church  anywhere.  If  he  had  been  at  all 
lacking  in  courage,  he  would  have  given  up  the 
work  when,  as  often  happened,  the  difficulties 
before  him  became  apparently  insuperable  (II. 
Cor.  iv.,  8,  9).  If  adulation  could  have  turned  his 
head,  he  would  have  become  the  supposed  incar- 
nation of  a  heathen  deity,  and  would  have  founded 


76  Paul  and  the  Empire 

a  religion  of  his  own  (Acts  xiv.,  12,  13).  If,  after 
his  conversion,  he  had  retained  the  bigotry  of  his 
Judaic  education,  he  would  never  have  polluted 
himself  by  any  association  with  the  dogs  of  Gentiles. 
If  he  had  carried  over  into  Christianity  the  fa- 
naticism of  Judaism,  he  would  have  imposed  on  his 
Gentile  converts  the  rigorous  and  (some  of  them) 
odious  requirements  of  the  Mosaic  law ;  and  in  that 
case  Christianity  would  have  become  only  a  new 
sect  of  Judaism  embracing  Pharisees,  Sadducees, 
and  Nazarenes  (Acts  xxiv.,  5).  If  he  had  been 
lacking  in  discretion,  he  would  have  ruined  his 
cause  by  impracticable  measures  that  would  have 
brought  him  into  immediate  and  open  and  fatal 
conflict  with  the  empire.  He  says  of  himself: 
"I  am  become  all  things  to  all  men"  (I.  Cor.  ix., 
22),  and  therein  he  discreetly  conformed  to  the 
Master's  command:  ''Be  ye  wise  as  serpents  and 
harmless  as  doves"  (Matt,  x.,  16). 

The  rare  discretion  that  Paul  displayed  during 
the  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  of  his  ministry,  in 
the  adjustment  and  maintenance  of  apparently 
irreconcilable  relations,  whereby  peace  w^as  pre- 
served between  the  church  and  the  empire  until 
the  church  became  too  powerful  to  be  destroyed,  is 
one  of  his  most  striking  characteristics,  and  prob- 
ably the  one  that  goes  most  frequently  unnoticed. 
His  enemies  were  always  lying  in  wait.  A  single 
rash  speech  carried  to  the  willing  ears  of  a  procura- 
tor or  a  proconsul  wotild  have  been  liable  at  any 
time  to  prove  his  undoing.     A  single  indiscreet 


Paul  and  the  Empire  77 

move,  involving  a  change  in  the  civil  or  political 
status  of  his  converts,  or  the  least  indication  that 
they  occupied  an  attitude  of  hostility  to  any  of  the 
imperial  laws,  would  have  brought  down  on  them 
at  once  the  wrath  of  Rome.  In  fact,  such  was 
the  final  outcome. 

It  appears  probable  that  in  Paul's  time  the 
imperial  authorities  counted  the  Christians  as  a 
sect  of  the  Jews;  and  the  Jews,  by  a  special  con- 
cession, were  exempted  from  the  obligation  of 
paying  divine  honors  to  the  emperor.  They  were 
also  protected  in  the  free  exercise  of  their  own 
religion,  for  religious  freedom  was  at  that  time  as 
well  established  in  the  Roman  Empire  as  it  now  is 
in  the  United  States.  But  toward  the  end  of  the 
first  century  the  Christians,  then  generally  known 
to  outsiders  as  ''Adherents  of  the  Name,"  be- 
came so  numerous  that,  no  longer  being  associ- 
ated with  Jews,  they  were  separately  dealt  with. 
As  subjects  of  the  deified  emperor  they  were 
required  to  show  their  loyalty  to  him  by  at  least 
burning  a  pinch  of  incense  in  his  honor.  This, 
because  they  regarded  it  as  idolatry,  they  refused 
to  do.  Thereupon  they  became  the  objects  of 
persecution,  not  because  they  were  Christians, 
but  because  they  were  disloyal  to  the  emperor. 
The  contest  that  followed  between  the  church  and 
the  empire  lasted  for  about  two  centuries,  and  it 
was  a  war  to  the  death.  But  during  this  time  the 
church  had  become  too  strong  to  be  destroyed 
and  eventually  it  conquered.     It  was  by  no  means 


78  Paul  and  the  Empire 

the  least  of  Paul's  achievements  that  he  skilfully 
averted  that  war  while  the  church  was  in  the 
infancy  of  its  growth,  for  at  that  time  the  hostility 
of  the  empire  would  have  been  fatal  to  it  and  to 
him. 

For  reasons  already  stated,  I  do  not  understand 
that  Paul  imagined,  regarding  many  things  which 
he  required  or  permitted,  that  he  was  making 
rules  of  practice  which  should  be  of  binding  obliga- 
tion on  the  church  throughout  the  ages  of  its 
future  history.  He  was  writing  and  working, 
primarily  at  least,  with  direct  reference  to  the 
then  existing  condition  of  things.  For  instance, 
when  he  forbade  women  to  speak  in  the  church 
(I.  Cor.  xiv.,  34)  he  simply  required  them  to 
conform  to  the  demands  of  public  decency  and 
morality.  The  connection  which  women  in  those 
days  had  with  the  services  of  religion  in  heathen 
temples  was  not  such  as  was  promotive  of  good 
morals.  Hence  in  order  to  preserve  his  churches 
from  even  the  suspicion  in  public  apprehension  of 
immoral  associations  or  practices,  Paul  was  com- 
pelled to  prescribe  as  he  did.  But  such  a  state  of 
things  does  not  now  exist  in  connection  with  the 
service  of  our  holy  religion;  and  while  I  do  not 
advocate  a  woman-ministry,  I  know  no  good 
reason  why  this  prohibition  of  Paul's  should  still 
be  quoted  as  final  authority  on  that  point.  If  he 
were  now  living,  I  doubt  not  that  he  would  listen 
with  interest  and  approval,  and  possibly  with 
profit,  to  such  a  woman  as  Mrs.  Ballington  Booth, 


Paul  and  the  Empire  79 

even  if  she  were  speaking  from  a  Presbj^terian 
pulpit. 

Hence  also,  in  so  far  as  Paul  omitted  to  enjoin  on 
his  converts  the  high  idealism  of  the  Master  as 
set  forth  in  the  Gospels,  I  think  that  he  probably 
did  so  for  reasons  that  were  but  local  and  tem- 
porary; and  if  so,  it  obviously  became  the  duty  of 
the  church,  as  soon  as  it  gained  the  upper  hand  in 
its  contest  with  the  empire,  to  endeavor  vigorously 
to  conform  its  rules  of  living  and  doing  to  the 
much  higher  standard  which  the  Master  had 
prescribed.  Unfortunately  the  church  did  not  do 
so;  nor,  except  in  a  few  small  and  iminfluential 
sects  (as  the  Moravian,  for  example)  has  it  done  so 
yet. 


THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES 


If  this  book  were  entitled  Thirty  Years  of  Con- 
flict, the  average  reader  would  easily  get  a  more 
correct  understanding  and  a  higher  appreciation 
of  its  contents.  Its  present  title  is  clearly  a 
misnomer.  Peter  is  the  only  one  of  the  original 
apostles  whose  ''acts"  can  be  said  to  figure  with 
any  considerable  prominence,  and  that  only  in 
somewhat  less  than  the  first  half  of  the  book.  Paul, 
the  leading  character  in  the  rest  of  the  book,  was 
never,  so  far  as  we  know,  recognized  as  an  apostle 
by  the  Twelve.  The  next  most  prominent  per- 
sonages in  its  narrative,  Philip,  Stephen,  and 
James  (Acts  i.,  13),  never  even  claimed  apostle- 
ship.  If  Luke  had  intended  to  treat  of  the  acts 
of  the  apostles  generally,  he  would  have  told  us 
something  of  what  the  others  were  doing  during 
the  thirty  years  of  his  history.  The  man  who  first 
devised  this  name  for  this  book  did  not  under- 
stand his  business. 

It  is  the  only  book  in  the  Bible  that  is  strictly 
historical.  Chronicles,  as  the  name  implies,  is  a 
mere  chronicle  of  events;  Kings  and  Samuel  are 
the  same. 

80 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  8i 

Luke,  the  author  of  Acts,  was  probably  a  Greek 
by  descent,  and  clearly  possessed  in  a  high  degree 
what  is  called  ''the  historical  faculty" — a  faculty 
not  uncommon  among  the  educated  men  of  Greece 
and  Rome,  but  quite  rare  among  the  people  of 
Hebrew  blood.  Josephus  is  the  first  Jewish  his- 
torian of  whom  we  have  any  knowledge,  and  he, 
by  training  and  education,  was  half  Roman. 

Luke  also  had  a  good  education,  or  else  he 
possessed  a  native  genius  for  literary  work.  His 
Greek  diction  is  superior  to  that  of  any  other  New 
Testament  writer.  Where  the  facts  were  not 
within  his  personal  knowledge,  he  looked  up  and 
collated  his  authorities  with  care  (Luke  i.,  3). 
Much  of  what  he  wrote  in  Acts  he  personally 
observed  (Acts  xvi.,  16;  xx.,  7,  13;  xxi.,  i;  etc.). 
As  a  physician  (Col.  iv.,  14),  he  probably  had  the 
usual  education  of  his  profession.  His  writings, 
at  all  events,  show  clearly  and  conclusively  that  he 
was  well  equipped  for  the  work  he  undertook. 

From  evidence  found  in  Luke's  Gospel,  it  seems 
reasonably  clear  that  this  was  compiled  and  writ- 
ten after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (a.d.  70); 
and,  con jectur ally,  I  would  place  it  at  or  about 
A.D.  75.  The  Book  of  Acts  came  later  (Acts  i.,  i), 
probably  not  much  if  at  all  earlier  than  a.d.  80, 
and,  for  reasons  presently  to  be  noted,  not  later 
than  the  early  or  middle  nineties. 

It  will  appear  as  we  proceed  that  during  the 
first  thirty  or  forty  years  of  the  preaching  of  the 
new  religion,  say  down  to  about  a.d.  65  or  70, 


82  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

the  attitude  of  the  empire — that  is,  of  the  civil  au- 
thorities— was  not  unfriendly.  ^  The  new  religion 
was  tolerated,  and  its  adherents  were  protected,  just 
as  were  the  cults  of  Judaism  or  of  Jupiter  or  Diana. 
What  particular  deity  a  man  worshiped,  or  what 
religion  he  believed,  was  at  that  time  a  matter  of 
indifference  to  the  Roman  authorities  so  long  as 
he  paid  his  taxes,  obeyed  the  laws,  and  kept  the 
peace. 

So  far  as  existing  records  go,  no  general  perse- 
cution by  the  civil  authorities  was  inaugurated 
till  near  the  end  of  the  reign  of  the  Emperor 
Domitian,  say  about  a.d.  93-96;  but  it  appears 
reasonably  clear  that  at  some  time  earlier,  say 
between  a.d.  75  and  90,  the  imperial  authorities 
had  drifted  into  a  position  of  hostility  to  the  new 
religion,  and  were  showing  that  hostility  in  such 
ways  as  to  make  the  prospect  alarming.  This 
hostility,  we  may  readily  believe,  as  it  became  more 
open  and  more  pronounced,  led  to  local  persecu- 
tions here  and  there  throughout  the  empire,  until 
at  last  under  Domitian,  all  restraints  were  re- 
moved, and  the  attitude  of  the  imperial  authori- 
ties then  became  unalterably  hostile,  and  deadly 
in  its  hostility. 

We  may  safely  say  that  this  period  marked  an 

*  I  leave  the  Neronian  persecution  (a.d.  64-68)  out  of  considera- 
tion, because:  (i)  it  was  the  result  of  the  personal  malevolence 
and  brutality  of  Nero  himself;  (2)  it  ended  when  he  died;  (3)  it 
did  not  extend  to  the  provinces,  but  was  limited  to  the  city  of 
Rome;  and  (4)  it  did  not  change  the  subsequent  policy  of  the 
empire  toward  the  Adherents  of  the  Name. 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  83 

epoch  in  the  history  of  the  new  church.  There- 
after it  had  to  fight  for  its  right  to  live :  either  the 
church  or  the  empire  must  conquer.  The  fight 
was  made ;  it  lasted  for  the  next  two  hundred  years 
or  more ;  the  empire  was  defeated  and  Christianity 
survived.  But  during  the  earlier  years,  Judaism 
was  hostile,  and  violently  so,  as  it  had  been  from 
the  first ;  so  also  was  heathenism. 

Now,  as  I  read  the  Book  of  Acts,  it  was  written 
primarily  for  the  purpose  of  presenting,  historically : 
(i)  the  conflicts  between  Christianity  and  its  open 
and  avowed  enemies,  Judaism  and  heathenism; 
(2)  the  unjust  efforts  made  by  these  to  effect  the 
suppression  of  Christianity  by  bringing  it  into 
conflict  with  the  empire,  during  the  period  of 
which  the  book  treats,  say  down  to  about  a.d.  64; 
and  (3)  the  fact  that  these  efforts  were  unavailing 
because,  during  this  period,  the  church  had  invari- 
ably lived  at  peace  with  the  empire,  and  with  the 
church  the  empire  had  always  maintained  friendly 
relations.  If  these  things  were  so,  they  would 
obviously  operate  as  an  argument  in  favor  of  the 
continuance  of  amicable  relations  between  the 
church  and  the  empire,  and  as  an  argument  against 
any  policy  of  persecution  that  might  be  ''in  the 
air"  or  under  consideration  by  the  emperor,  his 
officers,  and  advisers.  For  if  (as  was  the  case), 
during  the  turmoils  and  conflicts  of  the  first  thirty 
years  of  the  life  of  the  new  church,  its  adherents 
had  so  observed  the  laws  and  lived  in  such  peace 
as  to  entitle  them  to  the  friendly  protection  of  the 


84  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

civil  authorities;  and  if  (as  was  also  the  case)  the 
only  occasions  when  they  were  mixed  up  in  riotous 
or  disorderiy  proceedings  resulted  from  the  unjust 
assaults  of  Jewish  and  heathen  fanaticism,  these 
facts  ought  obviously  to  have  been  of  no  little 
weight  in  preventing  the  adoption  of  any  opposite 
or  adverse  policy,  and  the  new  church  should  have 
continued  to  receive  public  toleration  and  official 
protection. 

Hence  the  argument  of  the  Book  of  Acts  is  an 
argument  against  persecution,  and  it  was  probably 
written  at  a  time  when  the  church  was  in  danger. 
It  involved  a  vindication  of  the  church  against 
unjust  assaults,  a  justification  of  the  policy  it 
had  pursued,  and  an  effort  to  secure  on  the  part 
of  the  empire  the  same  friendly  treatment  which 
for  thirty  years  it  had  enjoyed. 

Obviously,  such  a  history  could  not  be  written 
without  setting  forth  also  the  successes  which  the 
church  had  met  with  and  the  reasons  why  it  had 
grown  and  prospered  and  gone  to  nearly  all  parts 
and  provinces  of  the  empire;  for  these  successes, 
judged  either  by  the  means  employed  or  by  results 
attained,  involved  nothing  unfriendly  to  the  em- 
pire or  at  variance  with  its  recognized  interests, 
and  hence  gave  no  ground  for  a  change  in  the 
imperial  policy. 

Also,  it  was  important  to  the  same  end  that  the 
civil  authorities  should  be  informed  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  church;  where  it  came  from;  how  it 
came  into  existence;  the  purposes  and  principles 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  85 

of  its  organization;  who  were   its    leaders    and 
representative  men. 

Let  us  see  if  the  facts  fit  this  theory,  for  other- 
wise the  theory  is  worthless. 

The  Origin  and  Organization  oj  the  Church 

These  are  set  forth  briefly  but  with  sufficient 
fullness  for  the  writer's  purpose  in  chapters  i.  and 
ii.  The  new  religion  is  shown  (i.,  1-14)  to  be  the 
outcome  of  a  religious  movement  the  history  of 
which  he  had  narrated  in  a  previous  book,  but 
the  consummation  of  which,  by  the  resurrection 
and  ascension  of  its  founder,  is  here  particularly 
set  forth.  The  instructions  he  gave  for  the 
guidance  of  his  followers  (verse  8)  are  clearly 
stated,  and  it  \\ill  be  noted  that  they  contain 
nothing  of  a  political  cast  or  type.  So  far,  the 
empire  had  nothing  to  fear.  The  original  and 
authorized  organizers  of  the  chruch  are  individu- 
ally named  (verse  13),  and  record  is  made  of 
the  completion  of  the  official  organization  by  the 
election  of  a  new  member  to  take  the  place  of  one 
who,  through  a  course  of  base  treachery,  had  been 
driven  by  consequent  remorse  to  a  consequent 
suicide  (verses  15-26). 

Next  (chap,  ii.)  we  are  told  of  the  marvelous 
success  which,  in  consequence  of  the  presence 
and  power  of  a  supernatural  agency,  this  new 
religion  met  with  at  the  very  beginning  of  its 
career,  and  how  this  success  had  brought  into  its 


86  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

membership  representatives  from  both  the  near 
and  the  distant  provinces  of  the  empire  (verses  5- 
11).  It  was  indeed  wonderful;  in  power  and 
extent  the  Hke  had  never  been  seen  in  the  world 
before ;  but  it  was  only  what  the  ancient  prophets 
of  the  Hebrew  nation  had  predicted  centuries 
earlier,  as  Peter  proceeded  to  demonstrate. 

Thus  far  there  was  nothing  in  which  the  ad- 
herents of  the  new  faith  might  not  take  a  justi- 
fiable pride  and  rejoice  with  a  holy  fervor.  To 
them  it  was  a  vindication  and  source  of  consolation. 
Nor  was  there  anything  to  which  the  emperor  or 
his  officers  and  advisers  could  take  exception. 
The  religions  already  prevalent  in  the  empire, 
and  recognized  by  law,  had  supernatural  stories 
to  tell  that  were  much  less  credible  than  anything 
thus  far  narrated.  Neither  was  there  anything 
inimical  to  imperial  interests.  Of  course,  Luke 
does  not  say  all  this,  but  he  states  the  facts,  and 
leaves  the  obvious  inferences  to  be  drawn. 

The  Early  Conflicts  with  Judaism 

Three  early  conflicts  with  Judaism  are  narrated ; 
all  belong  to  Jerusalem  and  to  the  first  two  or  three 
years  of  the  period  under  consideration;  but  none 
of  them  involved  any  conflict  with  the  empire  or 
with  any  imperial  interests.  Let  us  take  them  in 
order. 

I.  The  miraculous  healing  of  the  lame  beggar 
by  Peter  in  the  name  of  his  divine  Master,  **at 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  87 

the  door  of  the  temple  which  is  called  Beautiful" 
(Acts  iii.,  i-io),  is  evidently  narrated  because: 
(i)  it  was  an  early  and  striking  illustration  of  the 
broad  and  kindly  beneficence  that  dwelt  in  and 
characterized  the  new  faith — that  is,  it  was  not 
inimical  (as  commonly  charged  when  Luke  wrote) 
to  the  best  interests  of  society  and  humanity; 

(2)  it  opened  the  door  for  a  new  exposition  of  the 
origin  and  nature  of  the  new  faith  (verses  1 1-26) ; 

(3)  even  so  kindly  an  act  done,  not  to  a  fellow- 
believer,  but  to  a  poverty-stricken  and  helpless 
stranger,  was  the  groundwork  of  the  first  conflict 
in  which  the  nascent  church  became  involved  (chap, 
iv.) ;  but  also  because  (4) — and  this  was  quite  as 
important  a  fact  as  any — the  conflict  was  on  a 
question  in  which  the  empire  (or  state,  as  we  call 
it)  had  no  interest.  This  miracle,  wrought  in  the 
highest  kindness  and  charity,  marked  the  incep- 
tion of  an  implacable  and  deadly  hostility  on  the 
part  of  Judaism,  and  a  hostility  that  continued  to 
be  implacable  and  deadly,  and  unceasingly  active, 
down  to  the  end  of  the  period  here  dealt  with. 
Judaism  became  an  enemy ;  but  this  enmity,  based 
as  it  was,  not  on  any  principle  of  legality  or  civil 
right  or  equity,  but  on  a  bigoted  and  inhuman 
fanaticism,  contained  or  presented  no  reason  why 
the  empire  or  state  should  also  be  an  enemy. 

In  this  first  conflict,  the  new  faith  won  a  tem- 
porary^ victory,  and  the  victory  was  devoutly 
celebrated  (Acts  iv.,  13-31).  The  miracle  also 
worked  greatly  to  an  increase  in  the  membership 


88  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

(verse  4),  and  likewise  in  the  consecrated  enthu- 
siasm of  the  members  of  the  growing  church 
(verse  32). 

What  bearing  had  the  Ananias  episode  (Acts 
v.,  i-ii)  on  the  general  subject  in  hand?  Simply 
this:  it  showed  that  the  church  was  honest  with 
itself;  in  other  words,  that  it  had  both  the  power 
and  the  will  to  enforce  on  its  own  membership  a 
faithful  compliance  with  the  high  rules  of  moral 
conduct  which  it  professed  to  the  world.  Obvi- 
ously there  was  nothing  here  at  which  the  imperial 
authorities  need  be  alarmed. 

2.  The  wonderful  success  met  with  in  the 
further  preaching  of  the  new  religion  (verses  12- 
16)  led  the  Jewish  Sanhedrin,  the  highest  court  of 
the  nation,  to  take  official  cognizance  of  what 
was  going  on;  for  the  Sanhedrin  exercised  jurisdic- 
tion over  matters  of  faith  and  morals,  as  well  as 
over  such  civil  questions  as  were  not  reserved  to 
the  Roman  tribunals.  As  the  Sanhedrin  looked 
at  it,  the  stability  of  the  orthodox  faith  of  the 
Jewish  church  was  being  endangered  by  this 
religious  re^dval  which  was  sweeping  like  wildfire 
through  Jerusalem.  Such  proceedings  could  not 
be  tolerated. 

The  record  (verses  17-42)  of  the  arrest  of  the 
apostles,  their  imprisonment,  supernatural  deliver- 
ance, rearrest,  trial,  and  final  acquittal  need  not 
be  recapitulated.  It  is  brief,  simple,  and  clear. 
But  two  facts  should  be  specially  noted,  for  Luke 
is  careful  to  state  them  with  much  particularity: 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  89 

first,  that  at  this  time  the  apostles  in  Jerusalem 
had  not  taken  a  position  of  antagonism  in  respect 
of  the  religious  reqmrements  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
They  carefully  observed  the  regular  usages  re- 
garding temple  worship  (Acts  iii.,  i).  Their 
usual  place  of  teaching  was  in  the  holy  temple 
(Acts  v.,  20).  They  were  Jews  as  much  as  ever. 
They  affirmed  that  their  new  faith  and  belief 
were  in  strict  accord  with  the  teachings  of  Moses 
and  the  covenant  with  Abraham  (Acts,  iii.,  22-26). 
Evidently  they  regarded  this,  their  new  faith,  as  a 
further  development  of  Judaism,  as  something  to 
be  added  to  it,  and  which,  being  so  added  to  it, 
would  perfect  it,  and  not  as  something  that  would 
abolish  and  supersede  it.  This  latter  conception 
and  its  practical  introduction  into  Christianity 
belongs  to  Paul  rather  than  to  the  original  Twelve. 
The  other  fact  is  this :  The  first  serious  manifesta- 
tions of  Jewish  hostility  to  the  new  faith  came 
from  the  Sadducaic  element  or  faction  of  Judaism, 
and  not  from  the  Pharisaic  (Acts  iv.,  i;  v.,  17); 
for  the  Jewish  church  was  at  that  time  divided 
into  two  irreconcilable  parties  or  sects,  each  vio- 
lently hating  the  other;  and  in  the  Sanhedrin  the 
Sadducees  were  then  in  the  majority.  In  this 
particular  crisis  the  Pharisaic  element  sided  with 
the  apostles  (Acts  v.,  34-40),  probably  not  out  of 
any  love  for  them,  but  simply  to  thwart  and  annoy 
their  common  enemy.  It  was  not  long,  however, 
before  the  Pharisees  also  became  bitterly  hostile, 
as  we  shall  presently  see. 


90  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

The  two  facts  thus  stated  were  important  for 
Luke's  purpose — the  first,  because  it  had  to  do 
with  the  charge  of  heterodox  teaching  that  was 
brought  against  the  apostles  (Acts  iv.,  17,  18;  v., 
28,  40),  which  charge  they  answered  by  proving 
the  contrary,  as  already  noted;  the  second,  be- 
cause it  had  to  do  with  the  composition  or  makeup 
of  the  court  that  tried  them.  The  majority  of  the 
court,  the  Sadducees,  were  avowedly  hostile,  and 
in  fact  were  the  prosecutors ;  so  that  the  accused, 
after  trial,  were  finally  acquitted  by  the  conjoint 
vote  of  both  factions  (Acts,  v.,  40)  that  is  to  say, 
by  their  avowed  enemies,  the  Sadducees,  as  well 
as  by  their  temporary  allies,  the  Pharisees. 

Nor  does  the  fact  that  before  release  the  apostles 
were  scourged,  just  to  keep  them  from  offending 
again  (verse  40),  lessen  the  effect  of  this  as  a 
verdict  of  acquittal;  for  we  may  be  sure  that  the 
same  Sanhedrin  which  a  year  or  so  before  had, 
contrary  to  law,  condemned  Jesus  to  death  (Matt, 
xxvi.,  66)  would  as  unhesitatingly  have  con- 
demned his  apostles  to  a  like  fate  if  it  had  been  pos- 
sible to  do  so.  Hence  the  verdict  of  acquittal,  thus 
rendered,  fully  justified  the  inference  that  Luke 
obviously  wished  his  readers  to  draw,  that  the 
Christianity  preached  by  Peter  and  his  apostolic 
colleagues  contained  nothing  which  was  at  variance 
with  the  teachings  of  Moses  and  the  prophets ;  for 
the  Sanhedrin,  the  court  especially  invested  with 
jurisdiction  of  such  questions,  had  in  this  case  so 
decided.    The  accused  had  been  guilty  of  no  crime 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  91 

known  to  the  Jewish  law.  Nor  was  it  pretended 
that  any  law  of  the  empire  had  been  violated. 
Hence  the  new  religion  was  entitled  to  tolerant 
treatment  at  the  hands  of  both  and  should  not 
have  been  persecuted  by  either. 

On  the  release  of  the  apostles,  their  work  was 
resumed  with  renewed  zeal  and  activity,  under 
the  special  manifestations  of  divine  favor  that 
attended  it,  till  we  come  to  the  conflict  that  arose 
out  of  the  vigorous  preaching  of  Stephen,  justly 
revered  as  the  first  of  the  long  roll  of  Christian 
martyrs  (Acts  vi.,  1-8). 

3.  This  third  conflict,  probably  about  a  year 
or  two  later,  was  a  direct  outcome  of  Jewish 
bigotry  and  fanaticism.  Stephen  was  rapidly 
forging  to  the  front  as  a  new  leader  of  the  primitive 
faith,  and  he  had  acquired  such  an  imderstanding 
of  it  that  he  was  led  to  take  the  advanced  ground 
afterward  occupied  by  Paul,  that  Christianity,  in- 
stead of  being  a  sect  of  Judaism,  to  live  and  be 
developed  only  within  the  Jewish  church,  and  to 
whose  membership  no  one  could  be  eligible  ex- 
cept Jews'  proselytes,  was  in  reality  a  religion 
that  would  abolish  and  supersede  Judaism,  so 
that  membership  therein  was  open  to  Jews,  but 
also  to  impure,  polluted,  and  hated  Gentile  dogs, 
and,  in  fact,  to  all  men  without  regard  to  race 
or  nationality.  As  soon  as  this  was  seen  to  be  the 
drift  of  Stephen's  argimient,  and  before  his  position 
was  fully  developed,  the  Sanhedrin  was  turned 
into  a  howling  mob,  and  he  was  stoned  to  death 


92  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

without  even  the  forms  of  verdict  and  sentence. 
The  wrath  thus  engendered  against  him  was 
turned  in  deadly  persecution  on  the  infant  church 
with  such  malignant  violence  that  its  leading 
adherents  were  compelled  to  flee  from  Jerusalem 
in  haste  (Acts  viii.,  4) ;  and  even  then  the  emissaries 
of  Judaism,  under  the  leadership  of  the  zealous  and 
bigoted  Saul,  followed  rapidly  on  their  trails  in 
vain  efforts  to  effect  the  total  extermination  of  the 
new  faith. 

Luke's  historical  purpose — and  I  am  now  dealing 
with  his  record  from  a  historical  standpoint — in 
narrating  this  third  conflict  (as,  merging  into  a 
mob,  it  had  no  judicial  result)  was  apparently  to 
explain  how  it  was  that  the  new  religion  came  to  be 
presented  to  the  Gentiles  of  the  empire  at  large; 
for  thus  far  no  Gentile  had  been  converted,  nor, 
so  far  as  we  know,  had  any  Gentiles  ever  heard  of 
Christianity.  Consequently,  thus  far  no  imperial 
question  had  been  raised.  And  still  further,  not 
only  was  it  true  that,  as  is  afterward  shown, 
Christianity  could  and  did  live  at  peace  with 
the  empire,  wherefore  there  was  no  excuse  for  im~ 
perial  persecution,  but  it  was  also  true  that  the 
members  of  the  new  faith  had,  from  the  first, 
sought  to  live  at  peace  with  Judaism,  and  that 
the  conflicts  which  arose  with  Judaism  were 
not  of  their  seeking.  The  Jews  in  every  case 
were  the  aggressors;  their  aggressions  were  with- 
out good  or  valid  reason ;  and  the  Christians  were 
the   innocent    victims.      And    this   was   true  of 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  93 

Herod's  brutality  (chap,  xii.),  as  it  was  of  the 
events  already  reviewed.  ^ 

But  the  church  now,  for  the  first  time,  came 
into  living  contact  with  the  Gentiles.  The  work 
spread  into  Samaria  (Acts  viii.,  5-25) — for  the 
Samaritans  were  classed  as  Gentiles — a  high  official 
of  a  distant  Gentile  court  is  converted  (verses 
26-40) ;  also  a  Roman  centurion  (Acts  x.,  1-48) 
and  probably  others,  for  these  are  evidently 
selected  as  historical  illustrations  of  the  gen- 
eral facts  and  conclusions  to  be  historically 
developed. 

For  strictly  historical  purposes  (chap,  ix.), 
the  conversion  of  Paul  was  but  an  episode,  though 
for  religious  purposes  it  was  much  more;  but  it 
was  an  episode  necessary  to  the  narration,  for 
hereafter  the  contact  of  Christianity  with  the 
empire  was  almost  wholly  associated  with  Paul 
and  his  work,  so  much  so  that  the  acts  and  Hves 
of  the  other  apostles  pass  entirely  out  of  Luke's 
field  of  view.  If  they  or  any  of  them  made  it  any 
part  of  their  official  work  to  carry  the  Gospel  to 
the  Gentiles,  history  does  not  record  it;  and  the 
traditions  that  are  preserved  relative  thereto  are 
of  no  historical  value.     On  the  records  as  we  now 

^  Luke's  reason  for  failing  to  give  an  account  of  the  trial  and 
conviction  of  the  apostle  James  does  not  appear  in  the  record. 
If  conjecture  be  allowable  we  may  surmise  that  this  was  a  tyran- 
nical case  of  judicial  murder;  and  if  so,  it  had  no  significance  in 
respect  of  the  relations  of  Christianity  to  Judaism  or  to  the 
empire — the  latter  being,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the  particular  subject 
of  Luke's  history. 


94  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

have  them  Paul  is  entitled  to  the  sole  credit  of  that 
work. 

And  that  work,  as  he  developed  and  enlarged  it, 
brought  him  into  repeated  conflicts  with  the  syna- 
gogue authorities  in  Gentile  cities  and  districts. 
Luke  mentions  a  number  of  these,  but  chiefly  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  how,  in  his  work,  Patd 
was  uniformly  compelled,  in  order  to  accomplish 
anything,  to  quit  the  synagogue  and  turn  to  the 
Gentiles  (Acts  xiii.,  44-48).  His  Gentile  work 
finally  led  to  conflicts  that  brought  him  and  his 
cause  before  the  imperial  tribunals,  with  results 
which  may  form  the  subject  of  our  next  lesson. 


THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES 
II 

We  shall  find  that  the  conflicts  in  which  Paul 
became  implicated  at  last  brought  him,  on  several 
occasions,  into  direct  contact  with  Rome  as  rep- 
resented by  her  highest  judicial  officers,  and  on  the 
last  occasion  before  the  emperor  himself.  Thus 
the  question  was  fought  out  whether  the  active 
propagation  of  Christianity  contained  or  involved 
anything  at  variance  with  the  laws  and  interests 
of  the  empire.  If  it  did  not — and  such  was  the 
final  outcome  of  the  history  now  before  us —  then 
the  conclusion  was  obvious  that  it  had  a  right  to 
the  same  toleration  and  protection  in  and  through- 
out the  empire  that  was  already  enjoyed  by 
Judaism  and  the  multitudinous  cults  of  heathen- 
ism.   Let  us  note  these  occasions  in  their  order. 

I.  According  to  Luke's  account,  the  work  of 
preaching  the  new  religion  had  gone  on  actively, 
aggressively,  and  successfully  for  some  twenty- 
five  years,  and  in  such  a  peaceable  way  that  nothing 
had  been  said  or  done  which  required  even  the 
notice  of  the  imperial  authorities,  a  fact  by  infer- 
ence greatly  to  the  credit  of  the  rising  chiirch. 

95 


96  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

The  first  conflict  came  at  Philippi  (Acts  xvi.,  ii- 
39).  A  female  slave  of  that  place,  popularly 
regarded  as  possessing  ''a  spirit  of  divination," 
and  who,  by  the  exercise  of  her  art,  ''brought  her 
masters  much  gain,"  made  herself  so  annoying  to 
Paul  that  he  exorcised  the  demon  that  was  sup- 
posed to  inspire  her  vaticinations,  and  as  a  result 
her  value  as  a  money-maker  was  at  an  end.  Her 
owners,  evidently  for  purposes  of  revenge,  effected 
the  arrest  of  Paul  and  his  coadjutor  Silas  and 
brought  them  for  trial  before  the  Roman  praetors. 
The  exorcising  of  demons,  however,  was  not  an 
offense  under  Roman  law.  Paul  had  done  nothing 
to  interfere  with  the  ownership  of  this  slave,  nor 
had  he  done  anything  to  lessen  her  market  value 
as  a  slave.  Hence  no  law  of  the  empire  was  vio- 
lated by  what  he  had  done.  So,  to  get  desired 
revenge,  the  charge  was  made  that  he  was  a 
disturber  of  the  public  peace  (verses  20,  21). 
This  was  a  punishable  offense  under  Roman  law, 
and  one  of  which  the  prastors  were  bound  to  take 
cognizance. 

The  trial,  however,  instead  of  following  the  re- 
quirements of  Roman  procedure,  merged  into  an 
exhibition  of  mob  violence  in  which  the  praetors 
not  only  unjustly  but  illegally  and  offensively  took 
an  active  part,  in  such  manner  as  to  render  them- 
selves liable  to  be  called  to  account  at  the  imperial 
court;  for  breaches  of  the  peace,  especially  by 
lawless  mobs,  were  something  which  Rome  did  not 
tolerate    (Acts   xix,  40).      On    the   morrow  they 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  97 

came  to  their  senses,  humbly  acquitted  the  prison- 
ers, meekly  discharged  them,  and,  evidently  to  get 
the  matter  hushed  up  before  a  new  outbreak  of 
mob  violence  should  bring  down  on  them  the  wrath 
of  the  emperor,  they  begged  Paul  to  take  himself 
elsewhere. 

Two  or  three  inferences  were  deducible  from  this 
account : 

(i)  Paul,  in  exorcising  a  demon,  did  nothing 
in  violation  of  any  law  of  the  empire.  The  cast- 
ing out  of  demons  was  not  uncommon  even  in 
heathenism  (Acts  xix.,  13-20). 

(a)  The  charge  that  he  was  a  disturber  of  the 
public  peace  was  not  true.  He  stood  his  trial 
and  was  acquitted. 

(b)  The  only  disturbers  of  the  peace  on  this 
occavsion  were  the  mob  and  the  Roman  magistrates. 

Obviously  there  was  nothing  in  all  this  that 
should  lead  the  imperial  authorities  to  take  a 
position  or  adopt  a  policy  inimical  to  the  new 
church.  Its  chief  leader  and  representative,  Paul, 
had  kept  the  peace  and  obeyed  the  laws. 

2.  The  next  occasion  was  when,  a  few  months 
later,  at  Corinth,  Paul  was  brought  before  Gallio, 
the  Roman  proconsul,  a  man  of  good  birth  and 
high  rank,  a  brother  of  Seneca  the  philosopher  and 
moralist,  well-educated  and  highly  trained  in 
Roman  law,  and  a  personal  favorite  of  the  emperor. 
As  the  sequel  proved,  he  was  a  typical  Roman 
judge. 

After  a  few  weeks,  Paul's  work  in  Corinth  became 


98  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

so  offensive  to  the  officials  of  the  Jewish  synagogue 
that  they  seized  his  person  and  brought  him  before 
the  proconsul  for  trial;  but,  unfortunately  for 
them,  they  could  not  charge  him  with  any  crime 
or  offense  known  to  the  Roman  law — only  that  he, 
a  Jew,  was  persuading  men  to  worship  their  (and 
his)  God  in  a  manner  contrary  to  the  methods 
prescribed  by  the  Mosaic  law  (Acts  xviii.,  13). 
Gallio,  as  a  Roman,  cared  no  more  for  the  Mosaic 
law  than  we  care  for  the  Book  of  Mormon ;  and  as 
for  the  particular  way  in  which  any  citizen  or 
subject  of  the  empire  worshiped  his  deity,  or 
what  deity  he  worshiped,  provided  he  did  it  in  a 
peaceable  manner,  and  not  in  disregard  of  any 
imperial  law,  Gallio  cared  not  a  button.  Subject 
to  these  two  conditions,  Rome  permitted  to  all  her 
subject  nations  the  free  exercise  of  their  respective 
religions,  and  subject  to  the  same  conditions. 
Religious  freedom  at  that  time  was  as  well  estab- 
lished in  the  Roman  Empire  as  it  is  now  in  the 
United  States.  Nor  were  the  adherents  of  one 
religion  allowed  to  interfere  with  the  free  exercise 
of  any  other,  for  such  interference  would  be,  or 
would  lead  up  to,  a  breach  of  the  peace,  and  the 
preservation  of  the  peace  was  the  first  duty  of  every 
Roman  official. 

As  soon  as  the  charge  was  made,  Gallio  saw  that 
it  involved  no  question  that  came  within  the  juris- 
diction of  a  Roman  magistrate.  If  they  had  any 
charge  to  make  ''of  wrong"  done  (a  civil  injiiry 
to  anybody),   or   "of  wicked  villany"    (a  crime 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  99 

against  the  law  of  the  empire),  he  would  try  the 
case ;  but,  as  the  charge  made — evidently  the  only 
charge  that  could  be  made — was  about  "words 
and  names  and  your  own  [Mosaic]  law,"  these 
were  questions  concerning  which  the  empire 
cared  nothing.  GalHo  accordingly  rendered  a 
prompt  decision,  and  dismissed  the  case  (Acts 
xviii.,  14-17). 

Now  why  did  Luke  take  the  trouble  to  report 
all  this  with  so  much  detail?  Simply  because  it 
was  what,  in  modem  law  practice,  we  call  a  pre- 
cedent, or  an  adjudicated  case ;  and  under  Roman 
practice  adjudicated  cases  had  quite  as  much 
weight  as  with  us — perhaps  more.  Stare  decisis  is 
a  very  old  rule.  A  proconsul,  as  a  judicial  officer, 
ranked  next  to  the  emperor,  and  the  decisions  of 
the  former  were  regarded  as  a  judicial  expression 
of  the  will  of  the  latter.  Hence  Luke  could  very 
properly  and  very  forcibly  cite  this  case  in  order 
to  estabHsh  the  conclusion  that  Christianity 
contained  nothing  inimical  to  the  empire;  that  it 
always  had  been  so  held,  and  therefore  that  Chris- 
tianity should  be  tolerated,  licensed,  and  protected 
just  as  were  Judaism  and  the  numerous  cults  of 
heathenism.  If  so,  the  conclusion  followed  that 
the  persecution  of  the  church  was  contrary  to 
the  long-settled  and  well-established  policy  of  the 
empire. 

3.  The  third  occasion  came  some  two  years 
later  at  Ephesus,  then  the  capital  of  the  Roman 
province  of  Asia,  now  a  part  of  Asia  Minor.     So 


100  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

numerous  were  Paul's  converts  from  heathenism 
that  the  sale  of  the  images  and  shrines  which 
constituted  a  part  of  the  cult  of  the  heathen 
goddess  Diana,  became  seriously  lessened,  and 
a  trade-union  riot  followed  (Acts  xix.,  23-41). 
In  this  case,  however,  though  Paul  was  not  ar- 
rested, two  of  his  coadjutors  were,  but  no  formal 
trial  appears  to  have  been  had.  But  apparently 
some  of  the  magistrates  were  friendly  to  Paul, 
had  kept  themselves  well-informed  of  what  was 
going  on,  both  as  to  Paul's  doings  and  as  to  the 
trade-union  opposition,  and  consequently  were 
prepared  to  deal  with  the  riot  as  soon  as  it  broke 
out.  Verse  40  gives  formal  expression  to  the 
danger  that  confronted  the  magistrates  when  the 
public  peace  was  disturbed.  In  the  case  here  re- 
ferred to  the  town  clerk,  evidently  familiar  with  all 
the  facts,  reminded  the  mob  that  these  Christians 
were  ''neither  robbers  of  temples  nor  blasphemers 
of  [their]  goddess"  (verse  37),  and  consequently, 
by  inference,  had  done  nothing  to  interfere  with 
their  worship  or  to  disturb  the  pubHc  peace.  If 
they  had  done  any  wrong  or  injury  to  Demetrius 
or  his  fellow-craftsmen,  an  ample  remedy  by  a 
regular  course  of  procedure  was  provided  by  law, 
and  to  this  they  could  report  (verse  38).  Ob- 
viously no  such  wrong  had  been  done ;  the  makers 
of  devotional  shrines  could  still  continue  to  make 
and  sell  as  many  of  them  as  the  worshipers  of 
Diana  desired  to  purchase.  Paul  and  his  co- 
adjutors had  not  interfered  with  the  worship  of 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  lOi 


Diana  nor  with  the  business  or  trade  of  her  de- 
votees. And  if  it  was  so  here,  it  was  presumptively 
so  elsewhere  in  the  empire — in  fact  wherever  any- 
idolatrous  or  other  worship  prevailed.  Thus  the 
leaders  of  the  new  church  were  adjudged  to  be 
keepers  of  the  peace  in  their  relations  with  heathen- 
ism, just  as  before  Gallio  they  had  been  held  to 
be  keepers  of  the  peace  in  their  deaHngs  with 
Judaism.  In  both  cases  they  had  respected  and 
obeyed  the  laws  of  the  empire. 

4.  All  these  experiences,  however,  were  only  a 
prelude  to  the  next,  which  began  in  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem,  and  ended  in  the  court  of  Caesar  at 
Rome,  occupying  in  all  foiu*  or  five  years. 

About  the  year  a.d.  57  or  58  Paul  made  a  trip  to 
Jerusalem,  ostensibly  to  carry  and  deliver  certain 
moneys  which  his  Gentile  churches  had  raised 
for  the  poverty-stricken  members  of  the  mother 
church  (Rom.  xv.,  25,  26).  I  doubt  if  this  was  the 
real  reason  for  the  journey,  for  certainly  Paul  was 
not  justified  in  thus  risking  his  life  (Acts  xxi.,  4, 
11-14)  on  a  business  errand  which  any  one  of  his 
several  lieutenants  could  have  done  just  as  well 
and  with  perfect  safety.  But  clearly  it  was  the 
only  reason  of  which  Luke  knew.  How  it  was 
that  by  so  doing  Paul  was  putting  himself  in  peril, 
has  been  explained  already.  When  he  released 
the  churches  under  his  charge  from  the  obligations 
of  the  Mosaic  law  and  ritual,  as  adopted  and  en- 
forced by  the  great  Sanhedrin  at  Jerusalem,  he 
thereby  became  in  Jewish  thought  a  renegade  and 


102  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

an  outcast.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  when  he  entered 
the  city  he  was  the  most  thoroughly  hated  man 
within  its  walls.  But  as  he  had  been  there  only 
once  or  twice  during  the  previous  twenty  years, 
and  then  only  for  a  short  time,  he  was  probably 
known  personally  to  few  outside  the  circle  of 
Christian  converts,  and  even  the  majority  of 
them  regarded  him  with  very  marked  disfavor 
(verses  20,  21). 

In  order  to  conciliate  this  hostile  Christian 
element,  Paul  consented  to  show  in  public  at 
least  an  external  conformity  to  one  of  their  leading 
ceremonial  observances  (verses  22-26).  One  da}^ 
while  so  occupied,  he  chanced  to  come  under  the 
notice  of  some  foreign  Jews  who  knew  him  by 
sight,  and  who,  in  their  bigoted  fanaticism,  at 
once  raised  the  *' mad-dog"  cry  of  heresy  and 
temple-profanation.  A  wild  and  lawless  riot 
immediately  broke  loose.  The  Roman  garrison 
quickly  intervened  and  rescued  Paul  from  an  other- 
wise certain  death,  not  because  they  cared  any- 
thing for  Paul,  or  even  knew  him,  but  simply  to 
''keep  the  peace. "  Before  the  officer  in  command 
of  the  garrison  could  find  out  what  the  riot  was 
about,  he  learned  of  the  existence  of  a  secret  but 
well-devised  plot,  engineered  by  the  holy  Sanhedrin 
itself,  having  for  its  object  the  assassination  of 
Paul.  He  thereupon  promptly  relieved  himself 
of  responsibility  by  sending  Paul,  under  a  power- 
ful military  escort,  to  his  superior  officer,  Felix, 
the  procurator  at  Caesarea,  and  referred  Paul's 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  103 

accusers  to  that  superior  authority  (chaps,  xxi- 
xxiv.). 

A  time  was  set  for  the  trial,  and  the  accusers 
appeared,  accompanied  by  a  professional  advocate 
who  filled  the  role  of  prosecuting  attorney.  A  set 
of  charges  (an  accusatio,  or,  as  we  call  it,  an  indict- 
ment)  was  formulated,  in  substance  as  follows: 

(i)  That  Paul  was  a  notorious  disturber  of  the 
public  peace  (Acts  xxiv.,  5). 

(2)  That  he  was  a  ringleader  of  the  new  sect, 
then  known  in  Jerusalem  as  "the  Nazarenes" 
(verse  5). 

(3)  That  he  had  profaned  the  holy  temple  of 
the  Jews  (verse  6). 

Counts  I  and  3  of  this  indictment  were  for 
offenses  that  were  punishable  under  Roman  law, 
for  as  to  count  3,  the  Jews  in  their  worship  were 
under  the  protection  of  the  empire.  Paul  in  his 
defense  denied  that  he  was  guilty  of  either  of  these 
offenses  and  demanded  the  proofs,  as  he  had  a 
perfect  right  to  do  under  Roman  law  (Acts  xxiv., 
11-13,  19,  20).  But  the  proofs  were  not  forth- 
coming. Perhaps  the  witnesses,  ''the  Jews  from 
Asia"  (Acts  xxi.,  27),  had  returned  to  their  distant 
homes,  or  for  some  other  reason  could  not  be  found. 
Possibly  they  had  discovered  the  mistake  the}^  had 
made  (verse  29) . 

Under  count  2  Paul  admitted  the  fact,  but 
denied  that  this  constituted  a  crime  under  Roman 
law  (Acts  xxiv.,  14-17),  which  was  a  true  and 
complete  answer  to  the  charge. 


104  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

Clearly  the  prosecution  had  failed  to  make  out  a 
case  and  the  prisoner  was  entitled  to  an  immediate 
acquittal  and  release.  And  not  only  had  the 
prosecution  failed,  but  Felix  had  already  ac- 
quired in  some  manner  a  sufficient  knowledge  of 
Christianity — then  known  to  him  as  "the  way" — 
to  enable  him  to  see  that  the  empire  had  nothing 
to  fear  from  Paul's  preaching  (verse  22).  At  the 
same  time  he  had  no  notion  of  letting  Paul  go. 
He  would  make  his  imprisonment  as  comfortable 
as  possible  (verse  23),  and  that  might  prevent 
any  appeal  to  the  emperor;  he  would  detain  him 
on  the  frivolous  pretext  that  he  must  see  Lysias 
before  pronouncing  judgment  (verse  22) ;  he  would 
bring  Paul  within  the  fascinating  influence  of  his 
beautiful  Jewish  bride  Drusilla  (verse  24) ;  he  him- 
self would  entertain  him  as  a  specially  honored 
palace  guest  (verse  26) ;  he  would  even  try  to  endure 
his  preaching,  but  a  single  experiment  was  enough 
(verse  25) — and  all  for  what?  A  bribe !  (verse  26). 
Paul  could  have  had  his  liberty  at  any  time  by 
paying  a  reasonable  bribe,  but  it  was  not  yet  time 
for  the  chiurch  to  be  doing  business  in  that  way. 
We  do  it  now,  only  we  call  it  a  ransom — the  same 
thing  under  another  name. 

Felix  continued  to  play  this  game  for  two  years 
(verse  27) ;  but  finally,  on  account  of  tyranny  and 
brutality,  he  was  removed  from  office  and  ordered 
to  Rome  for  trial.  Then  in  hopes  of  appeasing  the 
wrath  of  the  Jews  who  had  been  instrumental  in 
securing  his  recall,  he  left  Paul  a  prisoner  in  chains. 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  105 

The  case  then  came  before  the  procurator's  suc- 
cessor, Festus,  who  in  the  main  was  a  fair  and  ex- 
emplary ruler.  What  Festus  should  do  with  the 
case  was  to  FeHx  apparently  a  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence. Having  incurred  the  emperor's  displeasure, 
Felix  had  other  matters  to  think  of. 

The  Jews  had  become  a  turbulent,  fanatical, 
passionate,  and  quarrelsome  people,  and  were 
probably  the  most  difficult  to  manage  of  all  the 
subject  nations  of  the  empire.  Festus,  within 
three  days  after  reaching  his  capital,  Cassarea, 
probably  in  order  to  get  a  better  knowledge  of  the 
singular  people  with  which  he  had  to  deal,  made  a 
trip  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xxv.,  i).  Jewish  hatred  of 
Paul  had  not  abated  during  the  two  years  that  had 
passed.  At  once  the  Jews  made  a  dead  set  to  get 
Festus  to  bring  Paul  to  Jerusalem  for  trial,  where, 
even  if  he  should  reach  the  place  alive,  which  was 
very  doubtful  (verse  3),  it  was  perfectly  obvious 
to  one  knowing  the  condition  of  things  in  the  city 
that  he  would  be  convicted  on  the  testimony  of 
perjured  witnesses,  or  that,  if  acquitted,  he  would 
be  assassinated  as  soon  as  he  was  out  of  sight  of 
the  imperial  guards.  Festus  at  first  very  curtly 
refused  the  demand  of  the  Jews.  Paul  was  in  his 
custody  at  Caesarea,  and  there  the  trial  must  be 
held  (verses  2-5). 

The  trial  was  so  held,  and  it  was  briefly  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  former  trial  before  Felix  (verses  6-8). 
The  charges  were  not  sustained,  for  if  they  had 
been,  Festus  would  have  pronoimced  judgment  at 


io6  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

once,  as  he  was  anxious  to  placate  the  favor  of  the 
turbiilent  people  he  had  come  to  rule  (verse  9). 
This  latter  consideration  moved  him  to  suggest 
that  instead  of  rendering  judgment  at  once — and 
obviously  a  judgment  of  acquittal  (verse  10) — 
he  would  retry  the  case  at  Jerusalem.  Paul 
evidently  knew  that  a  trial  among  the  perjurers  and 
assassins  of  Jerusalem  would  only  result  fatally  to 
himself.  Thereupon  he  exercised  his  right  as  a 
Roman  citizen  of  an  appeal  to  the  emperor.  This 
appeal  removed  the  case  from  Festus's  jurisdiction. 
He  then  had  nothing  to  do  but  keep  the  prisoner 
in  safe  custody  till  he  could  be  sent  to  Rome,  and 
with  him  to  send  a  transcript  of  the  charges  made 
against  him,  and  of  the  proofs  and  proceedings. 
Festus,  however,  had  now  got  himself  into  a 
rather  bad  box.  He  could  not  help  recognizing 
the  fact  that  Paul  was  entitled  to  a  verdict  of 
acquittal,  as  fully  appears  from  the  last  clause  of 
verse  10,  and  from  Festus's  own  admissions  to 
Agrippa  (verses  17-19,  25);  but  he  had  refused 
to  acquit  him  before  the  appeal,  and  under  Roman 
procedure  he  could  not  acquit  him  after  appeal. 
He  must  now  send  the  prisoner  to  Rome;  must 
send  with  him  a  transcript  of  the  case,  a  trans- 
cript that  should  include  some  charge  of  offense 
against  the  laws  of  the  empire  and  also  an  abstract 
of  the  evidence  to  sustain  the  charge.  This  he 
could  not  furnish  for  the  prosecution  had  failed 
to  make  out  a  specific  case.  By  sending  to  his 
imperial  master  such  a  case  as  this  then  appeared 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  107 

to  be,  he  would  only  render  himself  a  subject  of 
derision  at  the  imperial  court  (Acts  xxv.,  27). 

While  Festus  was  still  puzzling  with  himself 
what  to  do,  it  happened  that  Herod  Agrippa,  the 
Roman  governor  (under  the  title  of  king)  of  certain 
provinces  along  the  northeast  frontier  of  Palestine 
made  a  state  call  on  Festus,  and  doubtless  being 
cordiall}^  welcomed  (for  such  a  call  was  a  high 
honor)  "tarried  there  many  days"  (verses  13,  14). 
Now,  while  Festus  evidently  knew  nothing  of 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  nothing  of  the  peculiarities 
of  Jewish  religion,  ritual,  ceremonial  require- 
ments, Messianic  expectations,  etc.,  and  conse- 
quently could  not  make  out  whether  Paul,  in  his 
preaching  had  so  interfered  Vvith  Jewish  worship 
and  observances  as  to  render  himself  amenable 
to  punishment  under  imperial  laws,  Agrippa,  on 
the  other  hand,  was  perfectly  familiar  with  the 
whole  subject;  for,  in  addition  to  his  training  and 
long  experience  as  a  Roman  king,  he  had  had  in 
early  life  a  Jewish  education,  and  was,  nominally 
at  least,  an  adherent  of  the  Jewish  faith.  Even 
still,  by  the  special  authorization  of  the  emperor, 
he  appointed  the  high  priest  and  exercised  a 
general  supervision  over  the  affairs  of  the  tem- 
ple. Possibly  he  might  help  Festus  out  of  his 
dilemma.  Accordingly  one  day  Festus  submitted 
to  him  a  brief  statement  of  the  case  (verses  14-21). 
Agrippa  readily  consented,  and  the  day  following 
was  set  for  the  hearing,  which,  though  not  a 
trial  in  form  (for  no  trial  could  be  had  after  ap- 


io8  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

peal),  yet  in  moral  and  logical  effect  amounted  to 
that. 

This  hearing  was  evidently  made  a  state  occasion 
for  the  entertainment  of  the  royal  visitors  by  a 
lavish  display  of  all  the  wealth,  pomp,  and  magni- 
ficence with  which  it  could  be  invested.  Festus, 
as  imperial  procurator,  would  necessarily  wear  his 
scarlet  robe  and  the  other  gorgeous  insignia  of  his 
high  office.  Agrippa,  we  may  be  sure,  did  not 
forget,  when  he  came,  to  bring  with  him  his  crown 
and  royal  apparel — for  the  Herods  were  always 
noted  for  their  love  of  ostentation  and  show. 
Bernice  also  was  there.  She  too  was  a  Herod, 
the  daughter  of  one  king,  successively  the  wife  of 
two  other  kings,  the  sister  of  a  fourth  king,  and 
afterward  the  reputed  mistress  of  an  emperor; 
wealthy,  proud,  and  imperious,  and  noted  even  in 
Rome  for  her  rare  beauty.  It  is  safe  to  say  that 
with  her  personal  attractions,  dress,  and  decora- 
tions and  her  attendant  retinue,  she  contributed 
no  small  part  to  the  magnificent  pageantry.  The 
uniformed  officials  of  Festus's  court  were  there, 
his  assessors,  military  tribunes,  and  lictors.  The 
city  officials  also  were  invited  (verse  23). 
Evidently  in  Luke's  thought  the  court,  as  thus 
constituted,  befitted  the  occasion ;  for  it  was  finally 
to  be  determined,  so  far  as  it  could  be  determined 
by  any  authority  less  than  that  of  the  emperor 
himself,  whether  Christianity,  as  preached  by 
Paul,  was  permissible  within  the  empire.  In  the 
trial  of  Paul,  Christianity  itself  was  on  trial. 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  109 

Festus  opened  the  proceedings  with  a  neat, 
clear,  and  graceful  statement  of  the  case  as  it  was 
developed  on  the  previous  trial,  and  also  of  his 
dilemma  in  respect  of  sending  it  to  the  emperor. 
He  then  turned  the  case  over  to  Agrippa,  who  thus 
became  the  presiding  judge.  On  receiving  per- 
mission to  speak,  Paul  proceeded  mth  a  masterly- 
exposition  of  the  relation  to  Judaism  of  the  new 
faith  that  he  preached  (chap.  xxvi.). 

In  it  he  was  grand,  eloquent,  and  sublime.  No 
finer  defense  of  Christianity  was  ever  formulated. 
Agrippa,  to  whom  it  was  especially  addressed, 
evidently  understood  it  all;  but  Paul's  recital  of 
heavenly  visions  and  revelations,  of  Messianic 
hopes  and  Mosaic  prophecies,  of  repentance,  sanc- 
tification,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead — 
to  these  Festus  apparently  listened  in  dismayed 
wonder  and  astonishment.  What  could  it  all 
mean?  To  him  such  talk  was  but  the  raving  of 
a  man  driven  into  insanity  by  overstudy  (verse 
24).  Paul  gracefully  affirmed  his  own  sanity 
and  declared  that  he  was  speaking  "words  of  truth 
and  soberness,"  as  Agrippa  well  knew,  if  Festus 
did  not  (verses  25,  26). 

Resuming  his  defense  after  Festus's  interrup- 
tion, Paul  began  to  press  home  on  Agrippa  the 
conclusiveness  of  the  argument  from  prophecy 
(verse  2^).  It  seems  clear  that  Agrippa  at  once 
apprehended  the  drift  of  the  argument,  but  he 
was  not  minded  to  be  caught  in  a  trap.  He  had 
heard  enough.     He  closed  the  discussion  with  a 


no  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

curt  remark  (verse  28),  the  meaning  of  which 
cannot  be  certainly  determined,  for  we  do  not 
know  the  tone  of  voice  or  the  manner  in  which 
it  was  spoken.  Agrippa,  though  a  Jew  by  faith, 
was  cynical  in  temperament,  and  not  noted  for 
piety;  in  fact,  he  was  "a  man  of  the  world"  as 
the  world  went  then.  Derisively  he  said  in  sub- 
stance, as  I  read  it:  "A  little  more  and  you  will 
make  a  Christian  of  me. "  The  idea  of  making  a 
Christian  of  Herod  Agrippa  was  the  climax  of 
absurdity,  or  as  we  sometimes  say  colloquially,  it 
was  "too  funny  for  anything."  We  may  readily 
imagine  that,  unless  restrained  by  etiquette  or 
*'good  form,"  a  loud  haw-haw  throughout  the 
court  must  have  greeted  this  remark.  Paul's 
reply  is  in  strict  accord  with  this  interpretation, 
for  he  impliedly  admits  that  he  has  no  more 
expectation  of  converting  Agrippa  than  he  has 
of  converting  the  lordly  Festus  and  his  heathen 
court,  the  wanton  Bernice,  and  the  other  numer- 
ous members  of  the  heathen  concourse.  The 
idea,  so  prominent  in  our  modern  preaching  and 
hymnology,  that  Agrippa  was  ''almost  persuaded," 
is  not  sustained  by  the  record. 

Without  waiting  to  hear  the  remainder  of  Paul's 
argument,  the  coiirt  adjourned  (verse  30).  After 
a  consultation  of  all  the  officials  (court  and 
cabinet),  a  verdict  of  acquittal  was  unanimously 
agreed  on  (verses  31,  32),  although  technically  it 
came  too  late  to  effect  Paul's  release.  But  as  a 
judicial  finding  its  moral  effect  was  the  same. 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  1 1 1 

Paul,  in  preaching  Christianity,  had  wronged  no 
one;  had  done  no  violence  to  Judaism  nor  to  its 
service  or  worship;  had  violated  no  law  of  the 
empire.  Probably  there  was  just  at  that  time  no 
officer  of  the  imperial  government  better  quaHfied 
to  pass  judicially  on  those  questions  than  was 
Herod  Agrippa,  and  I  surmise  that  this  was  Luke's 
reason  for  giving  such  full  particulars  of  this 
remarkable  trial. 

I  have  followed  these  proceedings  with  some 
detail  simply  to  bring  out  clearly  the  fact  that  on 
these  charges,  and  the  only  charges  which  could 
be  brought  against  him,  Paul  was  tried  three  times 
by  the  imperial  authorities — ^first  by  Felix,  then 
by  his  successor  Festus,  and  again  by  Agrippa — 
and  by  none  of  the  three  was  he  foimd  to  be  guilty 
of  any  offense  against,  or  of  any  crime  under,  the 
laws  of  the  empire,  even  though  the  prosecution 
was  conducted  by  the  Jewish  Sanhedrin  with  all 
the  wealth,  power,  and  influence  at  its  command, 
and  when  two  at  least  of  the  three  judges  were 
avowedly  hostile,  and  the  third,  Agrippa,  no  friend 
of  Paiil's. 

It  is  a  noticeable  fact  that  Luke  is  silent  as  to 
the  first  disposal  of  Paul's  case,  when  this  was 
brought  before  the  emperor  for  appeal. 

From  the  record  left  us  (Acts  xxviii.,  11-31)  it 
seems  that  Paul,  on  arriving  at  Rome,  was  not 
regarded  by  the  imperial  authorities  as  a  particu- 
larly dangerous  personage,  and  hence,  instead  of 
being  subjected  to  close  confinement  was  made  a 


112  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

prisoner  in  libera  custodia,  that  is,  guarded  only  by 
soldiers  to  prevent  his  escape,  and  in  order  that 
he  might  be  produced  when  called  for.  His 
imprisonment  was  largely  nominal. 

He  was  allowed  to  rent  lodgings  or  apartments  of 
his  own,  and  within  those  lodgings  was  subject  to 
no  restrictions  in  respect  of  his  evangelizing  work. 
And  this  detention  continued  two  whole  years, 
probably  awaiting  the  coming  of  a  new  transcript 
of  the  case  from  Festus,  to  take  the  place  of 
the  one  presumably  lost  in  the  shipwreck;  or  pos- 
sibly the  interval  was  spent  in  efforts  to  look 
up  the  witnesses,  "Jews  from  Asia"  (Acts  xxi., 
27),  in  whose  bigotry  the  proceedings  had  their 
inception. 

If  we  may  conjecture  that  the  witnesses  were 
never  found,  or  that  the  transcript,  when  it  came, 
was  found  by  the  Roman  lawyers  to  be  fatally 
defective,  and  that  Paul,  after  a  nominal  hearing, 
was  discharged  without  trial,  then  the  history 
would  be  perfectly  consistent  with  all  the  facts 
now  known  to  us. 

There  could  hardly  have  been  a  judicial  trial 
and  acquittal,  for,  if  there  had  been,  and  if  I  am 
right  in  the  views  above  expressed  as  to  Luke's 
purpose  in  writing  the  book,  he  would  certainly 
have  told  us  of  such  an  event,  for  such  fact  woiild 
have  completed  and  fully  confirmed  his  main 
argument.  In  fact,  such  an  adjudication  would 
have  been  final  in  all  Roman  courts  throughout 
the  empire,  at  least,  until  reversed  in  some  later 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  113 

proceeding  by  the  same  or  some  subsequent 
emperor. 

Hence  I  am  inclined  to  think  that,  as  the  out- 
come of  this  particular  episode,  Paul  was  finally 
discharged  without  trial;  evidence  and  record,  one 
or  both,  being  lost.  But  the  fact  that  for  "two 
whole  years,"  and  while  in  custody  as  a  prisoner, 
he  was  permitted  to  preach  Christianity,  at  the 
headquarters  of  the  empire,  is  strongly  confirma- 
tory of  the  conclusion  that  the  imperial  authorities, 
at  that  time,  did  not  regard  the  new  religion  as 
containing  anything  inimical  to  imperial  interests ; 
and  this  fact  Luke  apparently  recorded  with  care, 
for  it  was  at  least  partial  confirmation  of  the  con- 
clusion which  he  was  seeking  to  establish. 

The  inference  is  obvious;  the  empire  had  no 
cause  or  occasion  to  take  an  attitude  or  adopt 
a  policy  hostile  to  Christianity,  and  least  of  all  to 
persecute  its  adherents.  If  precedents  or  adjudi- 
cated cases  were  worth  anything,  the  results  of 
these  three  trials  could  be  properly  cited  along 
with  those  that  had  gone  before  to  support  that 
conclusion. 

5.  Paul's  next  trial  was  before  the  emperor  at 
Rome.  Of  the  details  and  results  of  that  trial  we 
know  nothing  with  certainty,  but  other  facts 
known  to  us  are  compatible  only  with  his  acquittal. 
Luke  tells  us  only  (Acts  xxviii.,  30)  that  Paul  re- 
mained two  years  a  prisoner  in  Rome.  Probably 
the  transcript  of  the  case  was  lost  in  the  shipwreck 
(chap,  xxvii.,),  and  the  proceedings  were  delayed 


114  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

till  a  new  one  could  be  procured  from  Caesarea. 
For  reasons,  a  statement  of  which  would  unduly 
lengthen  the  present  sketch,  I  think  it  fairly  clear 
that  Luke  intended  to  write  a  third  book — his 
Gospel  being,  as  he  calls  it,  "the  first"  (Acts  i.,  i) 
— which  should  be  practically  a  continuation  of 
Acts  (the  second  book),  and  should  further  de- 
velop the  same  general  subject.  Perhaps  death 
intervened  to  prevent  it ;  perhaps  he  wrote  it,  and 
it  is  lost.  In  any  event,  the  Book  of  Acts  is  a  clear, 
and  historically  a  noble,  vindication  of  the  rights  of 
Christianity  within  the  empire,  and  of  the  right  of 
its  adherents  to  live  in  the  empire  as  a  part  of  the 
empire,  and  to  be  protected  by  the  empire.  They 
kept  the  peace  and  obeyed  the  laws ;  so  it  had  been 
judicially  decided  by  the  imperial  courts  time  and 
time  again;  what  more  had  the  empire  a  right  to 
ask? 

If,  as  I  believe,  Luke  wrote  the  Book  of  Acts, 
partly  at  least,  to  avert,  if  possible,  a  coming  or 
threatened  persecution,  his  effort  so  far  was  a 
failure.  The  power  of  Judaism  to  injure  the  new 
faith  ended  practically  with  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  (a.  d.  70);  but  the  hostile  forces  of 
heathenism  were  too  strong  to  be  held  permanent- 
ly in  restraint,  and  the  empire  was  soon  committed 
to  a  policy  of  persecution.  The  causes  that  led  to 
this  change  of  policy  were  so  complicated  that 
to  state  them,  even  briefly,  would  require  a 
separate  sketch;  but  their  power  was  such  that 
they  could  not  be  stayed.     The  empire  was  at 


The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  115 

last  led  to  take  an  attitude  incompatible  with  the 
existence  of  Christianity,  which  it  attempted  to 
suppress;  but  after  about  two  hundred  years  of 
bloody,  brutal,  and  persistent  persecution,  Chris- 
tianity triumphed,  and  by  its  own  sacrifices 
demonstrated  finally  its  right  and  its  power  to 
live,  and  to  labor,  and  to  enjoy  the  fniits  of  its 
labors,  even  in  the  strongholds  of  the  most  power- 
ful persecutor  with  which  it  ever  came  in  conflict. 
The  Book  of  Acts  is,  in  effect,  a  history  of  the  first 
thirty  years  of  that  conflict. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN 

The  fourth  Gospel  resembles  no  other  book  in 
the  Bible;  and,  indeed,  there  is  none  like  it  in  the 
wide  world.  It  has  a  distinctive  character  of  its 
own,  and  occupies  a  position  by  itself.  Of  course, 
like  each  of  the  other  Gospels,  the  personaHty 
of  Christ  dominates  it  in  every  part,  and  pervades 
it  throughout;  but  in  tone  and  spirit  it  is  pitched 
on  a  totally  different  key.  Even  its  starting-point 
is  radically  different.  Matthew  and  Luke  open 
their  Gospels  with  an  account  of  the  birth  and 
childhood  of  Jesus.  In  John's  apprehension,  the 
Christ  whom  he  delineated  had  no  childhood. 
As  ''the  Word"  of  God,  the  manifestation  and 
expression  of  what  God  is,  has  done,  is  doing, 
and  purposes  yet  to  accomplish,  especially  in 
the  salvation  of  our  fallen  race — thus  regarded. 
He  existed  from  all  eternity,  created  everything, 
pervades  everything,  is  the  sotuce  of  all  life,  and 
that  life,  in  what  to  us  is  its  highest  development, 
is  both  the  Hfe  and  the  Hght  of  men. 

Presently,  in  the  unfolding  of  John's  thought, 

this  "Word  became  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us," 

to  the  end  that  we,  through  the  "grace  and  truth" 

which  Christ  brought  from  heaven  to  earth  as  a 

n6 


The  Gospel  of  John  117 

part  of  His  very  essence  and  being  might  be  saved. 
How  this  wonderful  transformation  was  effected, 
how  ''the  Word,"  through  a  virgin  mother, 
''became  flesh,"  was,  from  John's  point  of  view, 
a  matter  just  then  of  no  consequence,  and  accord- 
ingly he  said  nothing  about  it  (John  i.,  1-18). 
From  the  standpoint  he  occupied,  the  incidents  of 
the  nativity,  and  the  Hfe  of  Jesus  until  He  attained 
manhood,  were  of  no  special  interest. 

But  the  results  that  were  to  follow  from  this 
transformation — from  the  incarnation  of  "the 
Word"  in  himianity — were  of  transcendent  im- 
portance. Humanity  was  to  be  remade;  men 
were  to  be  "bom  anew"  (or  "born  from  above"), 
not  so.  much,  in  John's  thought,  by  the  example 
He  set  and  the  manner  of  living  that  He  pre- 
scribed, or  even,  primarily,  by  any  sacrificial  or 
other  theory  of  an  atonement  wrought  out  by 
Himself,  as  we  might  naturally  infer  from  the 
earlier  Gospels;  but  rather  through  the  power  of 
His  personality  and  spirit  working  in  the  hearts 
of  men.  This  was  briefly  the  gospel  that  Paul 
preached,  and  here  Paul  and  John  were  at  one, 
as  we  shall  presently  see.  Neither  of  them  places 
any  stress  or  gives  any  great  prominence  to  the 
particular  incidents  of  our  Saviour's  life — that  is 
to  say,  prior  to  His  passion — except  as  through 
these  incidents  they  are  enabled  to  bring  out  in 
bold  relief  the  leading  facts  or  truths  of  His  new 
revelation.  What  we  sometimes  speak  of  as  "the 
historic  Christ" — that  is,   a  person  advancing 


ii8  The  Gospel  of  John 

'4n  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God 
and  man"  (Luke  ii.,  52) — is  wholly  foreign  to  the 
Gospel  of  John  and  to  the  teaching  of  Paul. 

The  fact  that  the  fourth  Gospel  was  written 
thirty  or  forty  years  later  than  the  others  justifies 
an  inquiry  as  to  whether  some  new  and  unwelcome 
conditions  may  not  have  arisen  in  the  church 
during  that  time,  on  account  of  which  arose  also 
a  necessity  for  a  new  and  perhaps  a  somewhat 
different  presentation  of  the  essential  truths  of  the 
Christian  faith. 

New  times,  new  errors,  or  heresies,  and  even  new 
beHefs,  or  new  forms  of  old  beliefs,  frequently 
demand  new  statements  or  new  creeds,  as  the 
later  history  of  the  church  abundantly  proves — 
and  of  this,  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  to-day, 
with  its  late  efforts  at  creed-revision  (now  a  suc- 
cess) is  an  illustrative  example. 

In  speaking  of  new  times,  new  conditions,  etc., 
we  must  remember  that  the  new  church,  under 
its  early  spirit  of  enthusiasm,  was  undoubtedly 
growing  and  moving  with  marvelous  rapidity 
in  some  direction — but  whither?  From  Paul's 
epistles  we  can  readily  gather  the  direction  of  its 
development  during  his  lifetime  and  while  under 
his  guidance.  But  at  the  time  when  the  fourth 
Gospel  was  written  Paul  had  been  dead  for  thirty 
years  or  more — the  period  of  an  average  genera- 
tion— and  his  power  of  guidance  and  restraint 
was  wanting.  John  was  apparently  his  successor 
as  the  apostolic  bishop  of  the  churches  of  Asia 


The  Gospel  of  John  119 

Minor;  but  as  to  what  was  going  on  in  those 
churches  during  those  thirty  years  we  really  know 
scarcely  anything  except  what  we  can  infer  from 
what  John  elsewhere  tells  us. 

The  book  of  Revelation,  generally  ascribed  to 
John,  was  written  not  very  far  from  the  same  time 
as  his  Gospel.  Both  belong  to  the  same  period  or 
era  of  church  history — approximately  about  the 
end  of  the  first  or  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century.  In  so  far  as  the  condition  of  things  in 
the  church,  its  tendencies,  its  errors,  its  piety,  and 
its  prospects,  may  have  influenced  or  controlled 
John  in  the  preparation  of  either,  the  two  books 
are  on  a  par.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  these  two 
records  are  practically  contemporaneous,  and  that 
both  belong  to  a  comparatively  late  period,  as 
above  indicated,  the  letters  of  John  to  ''the  seven 
churches"  (Rev.  ii.,  1-3)  become  exceedingly 
interesting  and  instructive  under  our  present 
inquiry.  "Seven "  being  in  Jewish  thought  one  of 
the  sacred  numbers  indicating  completeness,  it  is 
fairly  inferable  that  each  of  the  churches  named 
stood  for  some  particular  type  or  phase  of  religi- 
ous development,  and  that,  taken  together,  they 
represented  the  existing  religious  status,  or  the 
condition  of  religion  at  that  time,  at  least  in  the 
churches  of  Asia  Minor. 

From  these  letters  it  is  clearly  evident  that, 
during  the  thirty  years,  more  or  less,  which  had 
elapsed  since  the  death  of  Paul,  the  real  spirit  of 
the  religion  that  he  had  preached  to  these  churches 


120  The  Gospel  of  John 

had  largely  died  out.  Some  serious  and  alarming 
heresy,  promulgated  by  the  otherwise  unknown 
sect  of  the  Nicolaitans,  had  become  firmly  estab- 
lished in  the  church  in  Pergamum,  to  the  great 
deterioration  of  the  standard  of  piety  therein; 
while  through  some  other  influence  in  the  same 
church  religious  sacrilege  and  sexual  immorality 
had  ceased  to  be  matters  of  censure  (Rev.  ii.,  14, 
15).  The  metropolitan  church  in  Ephesus  had 
fallen  away  from  its  "first  love"  (verse  4).  In 
the  church  in  Thyatira,  some  woman  whom,  from 
the  pseudonym  (Jezebel)  given  to  her,  I  should 
imagine  to  have  been  probably  a  compound  of 
Catherine  de'  Medici  and  Madame  de  Pompadour, 
had  gained  the  upper  and  controlling  hand,  and 
had  introduced  into  its  service  some  of  the  vile 
abominations  of  heathenism  (verses  20-23).  In 
the  church  in  Sardis  the  forms  of  religion  were 
still  observed,  but  its  spirituality  had  departed 
and  the  church  was  "dead"  (Rev.  iii.,  i).  In  the 
church  in  Laodicea  religion  had  so  far  lost  charac- 
ter as  to  become  distasteful  to  the  spiritual  ap- 
prehension of  the  apostle,  as  much  so  as  a  drink 
of  lukewarm  water  to  a  thirsty  traveler  on  a  hot 
day,  and  what  Httle  religion  was  left  was  but  the 
religion  of  formalism  (verses  15-17). 

Only  two  out  of  the  seven  churches  escaped  the 
severe  denunciations  of  the  apostle.  Between 
Greek  philosophy,  rabbinic  casuistry,  and  heathen 
idolatry  in  five  of  the  churches  the  fountain  stream 
along  which  flowed  the  sanctifying  graces  of  the 


The  Gospel  of  John  121 

Holy  Spirit  had  become,  if  not  totally  obstructed, 
at  least  so  badly  befouled  and  clogged  that  but 
little  was  left  which  John  could  safely  regard  as  the 
basis  of  hope  for  the  future.  Every  one  of  the  five 
is  solemnly  warned  against  one  or  more  evils  in 
its  membership,  which,  if  not  speedily  corrected, 
would  prove  fatal  to  its  very  existence.  Of  only 
two  out  of  the  seven  could  the  apostle  speak  other- 
wise than  in  words  of  alarm  for  the  future.  And 
doubtless  he  was  familiar  with  the  subjects  of 
which  he  spoke,  especially  if,  as  alread}^  suggested, 
these  churches,  after  the  death  of  Paul,  came  under 
his  apostolic  jurisdiction  and  care.  He  would  then 
have  a  good  right  to  address  them,  as  he  did,  in 
terms  of  high  commendation  for  whatever  of  zeal, 
piety,  and  love  were  still  existent  in  them,  but  also 
with  severest  denunciation  and  warning  against 
their  back-sHding,  which  appears  to  have  been 
much  in  excess  of  their  steadfastness. 

Such  being  the  state  of  religion,  or  rather  of 
irreligion,  at  the  date  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  there  is 
ample  room  for  the  surmise  that  this  Gospel  was 
written  with  especial  reference  to  the  alarming  evils 
which  the  apostle  then  saw  to  be  impending  over 
the  church,  and  which,  if  not  speedily  remedied, 
could  not  fail  to  produce  disastrous  results.  In 
his  view,  the  only  remedy  was,  not  a  revival  of  a 
knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ  as  sketched  in  the 
synoptic  Gospels,  but  a  renewed  apprehension  of 
Him  as  a  spiritual  force  ever  present  and  dwelHng 
in  the  hearts  of  men.    As  Paul  had  put  it  in  his 


122  The  Gospel  of  John 

day,  his  religion  had  for  its  basis  the  revelation  oj 
Christ  in  himself  (Gal.  i.,  i6);  and,  as  appears 
throughout  his  epistles,  he  had  endeavored  to 
instil  into  the  early  believers  the  same  vital  and 
controlling  fact  as  a  part,  and  the  major  part,  of 
the  individual  experience  of  each.  But  the  power 
of  this  idea  or  conception  of  Christ  was  now  lost, 
or  at  least  was  no  longer  apprehended.  John,  in 
his  Gospel,  sought  to  revive  it.  How  did  he 
proceed? 

1 .  He  laid  down  a  new  law  for  the  adherents  of 
the  Christian  faith:  ''Except  a  man  be  bom  anew 
(or  from  above),  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of 
God"  (John  iii.,  3).  Forty  years  or  so  earlier, 
the  other  Gospel  writers  had  put  in  the  foreground 
the  law  of  repentance,  but  John  went  farther  by 
indicating  that  a  repentance  which  stopped  short 
of  or  failed  to  produce  a  new  birth  in  each  individual 
believer,  was  no  repentance  at  all:  it  would  be  of 
no  avail  as  respecting  citizenship  in  the  new  king- 
dom. Thus  he  carried  the  law  of  repentance  to 
its  extremest  application,  and  so  strikingly  and 
impressively  set  it  forth,  in  connection  with  the 
Nicodemus  interview,  as  to  make  it  practically  a 
new  law  of  the  church  and  a  new  element  of  the 
Christian  faith. 

2.  As  part  of  the  interview  with  an  otherwise 
unknown  but  somewhat  disreputable  woman,  John 
records  (John  iv.)  our  Saviour's  definition  of  God: 
He  **is  a  Spirit,"  not  an  emanation,  as  in  the 
gnosticism  of   the  second   century,  nor   "an  in- 


The  Gospel  of  John  123 

fluence  outside  of  ourselves  which  makes  for 
righteousness,"  as  in  the  agnosticism  of  our  own 
time,  but  an  individual  personal  Spirit,  to  be 
worshiped  by  all  who  seek  Him  ''in  spirit  and 
truth."  But  what  was  more  to  the  point,  there 
was  no  geographical  locality  where  He  was  especi- 
ally to  be  found  for  purposes  of  worship,  as  there- 
tofore had  been  the  almost  universal  belief.  By 
the  Jew,  His  earthly  dwelling-place  was  thought 
to  be  only  in  Jerusalem,  and  only  there  could  His 
worshipers  gain  access  to  His  very  presence.  To 
the  Samaritan,  His  home  was  on  Mount  Gerizim. 
But  the  new  record  was  then  made  that  He  is 
present  everywhere  and  to  every  individual  in 
whose  heart  dwells  the  spirit  of  genuine  devotion. 
Thus  was  revealed,  not  for  the  first  time,  but  at 
least  with  new  force  and  impressiveness,  the  great 
fact  or  truth  that  the  God  of  the  Christian  faith 
would  come  into  direct  personal  relations  with  every 
devout  'worshiper  at  any  time  and  anywhere  on 
His  footstool.  This  was  a  part  of  Paul's  gospel 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  herein  John  follows  Paul. 

3.  And  if  Christ  was  the  life  of  the  world,  how 
was  the  spiritual  life  of  His  followers  to  be  sus- 
tained, especially  as  against  the  errors  of  faith  and 
practice  which  were  then  so  prevalent  and  power- 
ful?— ^for  we  must  remember  that  no  form  of  life 
with  which  we  are  familiar  has  the  capacity  of 
sustaining  itself.  Some  means  of  sustenance  must 
be  provided  for  spiritual  life  and  growth. 

In  the  little  synagogue  at  Capernaum,  on  the 


124  The  Gospel  of  John 

next  day  after  the  miraculous  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand,  and  in  the  hearing  of  many  of  those 
who  had  been  so  fed,  Jesus  answered  this  question 
(John  vi.,  22-59).  Solemnly  and  impressively 
He  annoimced  the  new  truth:  "I  am  the  bread 
of  life."  How  or  in  what  way  does  He  become 
the  bread  of  life?  This  is  a  matter  of  individual 
experience.  Not  one  person  in  a  thousand  has 
any  conception  as  to  how  or  why  ordinary  food 
sustains  and  nourishes  the  body ;  we  become  hungry 
and  learn  the  rest  by  experience.  In  like  manner, 
by  that  course  of  pure  and  holy  living  which  leads 
us  to  "hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness, "  and 
in  no  other  way,  can  we  come  to  learn  and  to  know 
how  or  why  it  is  that,  when  we  are  bom  anew  into 
His  life,  that  life  in  us  will  be  nourished  and  sup- 
ported in  and  through  Him.  It  cannot  be  ex- 
plained, it  can  only  be  lived,  and  the  duty  of 
living  it  can  only  be  measured  by  the  infinite 
value  of  the  immortal  life  so  to  be  attained. 

4.  Progressively,  step  by  step,  John  proceeds 
to  develop  the  dominant  thought  of  his  Gospel, 
which  is,  the  personal  relationship  that  the  indi- 
vidual Christian  should  sustain  to  the  God  he 
professes  to  worship  and  serve;  and  this  dominant 
thought  John  gradually  unfolds  until  in  his  hands 
it  becomes  a  relation  of  oneness  with  God.  When 
that  is  attained,  and  so  long  as  it  is  preserved, 
it  obviously  follows  that  the  individual  Christian 
can  no  more  lapse  into  heresy  or  idolatry,  or  con- 
form to  the  abominations  of  heathenism  (as  the 


The  Gospel  of  John  125 

church  was  then  so  largely  doing)  than  God  Him- 
self can.  Such  a  thing  would  be  not  only  im- 
possible, but  inconceivable. 

How  do  we  find  this  idea  developed? 

Christ,  in  John's  conception  of  Him,  brought 
into  the  world  a  new  apprehension  of  the  nature, 
strength,  and  extent  of  the  Father's  love  for  sinful 
men.  It  was  a  love  for  the  undeserving,  the 
unworthy,  the  wicked,  and  a  love  that  even  death 
itself  could  not  quench  (John  iii.,  16;  viii.,  42,  etc.). 
Paul  had  understood  and  preached  the  same  truth 
(Rom.  v.,  6-8),  but  the  churches  to  which  he 
preached  were  rapidly  forgetting  it. 

Next,  in  the  exhibition  of  this  love,  as  well  as 
in  their  essential  life,  thought,  and  being,  Christ 
and  the  Father  were  one.  Christ  dwelt  in  the 
Father,  and  the  Father  in  Him  (John  x.,  30;  xiv., 
10,  et  seq.). 

Likewise,  He  dwelt  in  the  hearts  of  His  devout 
followers  and  by  so  dwelHng  He  incorporated  the 
love  and  life  of  the  Father  into  their  hearts  and 
lives,  into  their  very  essence  and  being,  and  there- 
by made  them  like  God — one  with  Him,  partici- 
pants in  and  partakers  of  His  life,  and  therefore 
able  and  willing  to  return  His  love,  and  to  live 
with  Him  and  like  Him  and  in  Him  (John  xiv., 
20-23;  XV.,  8-17). 

Thus  they  would  be  born  again  or  anew,  or 
born  from  above,  and  born  into  a  new  life  with  God, 
and  the  union  or  oneness  of  God  and  man  would 
be  perfect,  complete,  and  eternal.     And  when  so 


126  The  Gospel  of  John 

bom  and  so  united  with  Him,  the  errors,  the  back- 
slidings,  and  corruptions  which  had  crept  into  and 
endangered  the  spiritual  life  of  "the  seven  churches" 
would  infest  them  no  more. 

As  to  what  the  apostle  meant  by  oneness  with 
God,  I  must  say,  as  I  said  of  the  bread  of  life, 
that  it  is  something  to  be  learned  by  living  it — 
by  trying  faithfully  and  diligently  to  attain  unto 
it.  Such  seems  to  have  been  Paul's  idea  (Phil, 
iii.,  13,  14).  I  apprehend  also  that  the  old  patri- 
arch Enoch  understood  it,  at  least  in  part.  He 
"walked  with  God" — much,  perhaps,  as  two 
friends  with  the  same  interests,  tastes,  and  wishes, 
either  cheerfully  adopting  the  choice  of  the  other, 
might  walk  the  same  road  without  a  thought  of 
dissent  or  hesitation,  and  find  therein  the  high- 
est attainable  enjoyments  of  mutual  fellowship. 
Along  the  paths  selected  by  one,  the  other  finds 
it  his  chiefest  pleasure  to  journey.  He  wishes  no 
other  route.  By  living  as  he  did,  Enoch  was  led 
directly  into  the  presence  of  the  God  whom  he 
served,  for  the  record  adds:  "He  was  not;  for  God 
took  him"  (Gen.  v.,  24). 

It  may  be  added  that  even  our  Saviour  made  no 
effort  to  explain  the  full  meaning  of  the  phrase 
"oneness  with  Him."  Briefly  He  says:  "If  any 
man  willeth  to  do  His  will,  he  shall  know  of  the 
teaching"  (John  vii.,  17).  In  His  conception  it  is 
something  to  be  learned  as  a  result  of  Christian 
experience,  and  so  far  as  we  now  know,  it  can  be 
learned  in  no  other  way. 


The  Gospel  of  John  127 

5.  Another  element  of  our  Christian  faith 
received  its  first  full  recorded  development  at 
the  hands  of  John. 

The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  became  a  sort 
of  stimibling-block  in  the  early  church.  This  was 
something  that  lay  wholly  outside  the  hopes  and 
expectations  of  heathenism.  No  Gentile  prophet 
or  philosopher  had  ever  made  this  a  part  of  his 
teaching.  The  uninspired  human  intellect,  in  its 
wildest  flights  of  imagination,  had  never  soared 
to  the  sublime  conception  here  involved.  The 
philosophers  of  Greece  laughed  at  it,  as  something 
too  absurd  for  serious  consideration,  as  soon  as 
Paul  mentioned  it  (Acts  xvii.,  32).  Hence  it 
is  not  siirprising  that  among  the  early  converts 
gathered  from  heathenism  were  some  who  hesi- 
tated to  accept  so  novel  and  to  them  so  improbable 
a  doctrine  or  belief.  Some  in  the  Corinthian 
church,  in  the  days  of  Paul,  denied  it  outright 
(I.  Cor.  XV.,  12).  Others  took  the  view  that  a 
spiritual  resurrection  was  meant — a  resurrection 
of  the  soul  from  moral  death  to  a  heavenly  life — 
and  that,  as  to  each  individual  convert,  such  a 
resurrection  was  already  past  (II.  Tim.  ii.,  18). 

Paul,  of  course,  controverted  this  heresy  with 
his  usual  emphasis  and  vigor,  but  solely  on  the  au- 
thority of  the  revelation  made  to  himself.  That 
is,  he  did  not  cite  against  it  any  oral  declara- 
tion or  teaching  of  the  Master.  Possibly  he  did 
not  know  of  any.  Whether  this  heresy  continued 
to  exist  in  the  church  down  to  the  end  of  the 


128  The  Gospel  of  John 

century  does  not  positively  appear,  but  if  we  may 
surmise  that  it  did,  then  the  appositeness  of  John's 
citation  of  the  Master's  words  (John  v.,  25-29), 
not  previously  reported,  will  be  at  once  apparent. 
The  other  Gospel  writers  had  preserved  His 
revelation  as  to  the  fact  of  a  resurrection,  but  had 
said  nothing  directly  as  to  what  it  would  consist 
of  or  how  it  would  occur.  John  recalled  and  re- 
corded what  the  others  had  passed  over  in  silence 
— that  in  this  resurrection  the  graves  would  be 
opened,  and  that  something  belonging  to  the 
personahty  of  the  buried  person  would  come  forth. 
This  citation  settled  the  question  for  the  church 
from  that  time  onward.  The  predicted  resurrec- 
tion was  not  past ;  neither  did  a  moral  resurrection 
satisfy  its  requirements. 

The  modern  church  has  gone  to  the  other 
extreme,  in  teaching  as  an  article  of  faith  **the 
resurrection  of  the  body'' — a  doctrine  not  found 
in  the  New  Testament. 

From  these  and  a  few  other  considerations  of 
like  kind,  I  infer  that  the  fourth  Gospel  was  not 
written  (as  the  others  were)  by  way  of  general 
setting  forth  of  the  Hfe,  works,  and  teachings  of 
Jesus,  but  rather  as  a  special  presentation  of  John's 
matured  conception  of  Him — who  and  what  He 
was — with  special  reference  to  the  practical  wants 
and  needs  of  the  deteriorating  church  as  it  existed 
about  the  end  of  the  first  century,  and  thus  in  order 
to  answer  or  refute  the  pernicious  practices  and 
heresies  then  threatening  its  existence.     And  to 


The  Gospel  of  John  129 

quite  a  large  extent  he  accomplished  his  purpose. 
The  Gnostic  heresy  died  out  long  ago.  The  Arian 
heresy  has  its  few  survivors  among  the  adherents 
of  the  Unitarian  church.  The  resurrection  heresy 
has  not  been  heard  of  for  centiuies.  Idolatrous 
and  licentious  practices,  except  where  the  super- 
stitions of  the  Middle  Ages  still  survive,  have  been 
driven  out.  But  the  church  has  yet  to  get  back  to 
the  ''first  love"  that  pervaded  the  earliest  converts 
and  also  has  yet  to  learn  to  realize  in  the  lives  of 
its  individual  members,  what  the  Master  meant 
by  oneness  with  Him. 


PETER 

Peter  was  a  fisherman,  not  of  the  leisurely, 
contemplative,  Waltonian  kind,  but  one  who 
fished  for  a  living.  He  had  a  wife  and  a  mother- 
in-law  to  support  (Luke  iv.,  38),  also  a  home  to 
provide  for,  though  whether  he  owned  or  rented 
it  does  not  appear.  Nothing  is  said  of  his  having 
children,  but  a  Hebrew  family  without  at  least 
one  child  (except  through  bereavement)  was  rare. 
Of  his  personal  appearance  we  know  nothing 
even  by  a  reliable  tradition.  It  is  doubtful  if  he 
had  accumulated  much  property;  if  he  had,  it  is 
still  more  doubtful  if  he  entrusted  any  of  it  to  the 
apostolic  treasurer,  Judas  Iscariot,  who  received 
and  disbursed — or  confiscated  (John  xii.,  6) — the 
scanty  charities  given  to  the  mendicant  band. 
Several  years  after  the  Crucifixion  Peter's  wife 
was  still  living,  and  accompanied  him  at  times  on 
his  missionary  tours  (I.  Cor.  ix.,  5).  Though 
evidently  possessed  of  good  natural  abilities,  he 
had  no  education  be3^ond  that  which  every  Jewish 
peasant  boy  received  (Acts  iv.,  13),  and  this  rarely 
extended  beyond  the  ability  to  read  and  write 
the  Aramaic  dialect  of  everyday  life,  with  a  more 
or  less  general  knowledge  of  Old  Testament  history, 

130 


Peter  131 

of  the  forms  of  Jewish  worship,  and  of  the  require- 
ments of  the  Jewish  faith.  Peter's  Epistles  show 
that  later  in  life  he  became  familiar  with  Greek 
and  probably  with  Latin,  the  official  language  of 
Rome  (Acts  x.).  But  dtiring  his  early  Hfe  he 
belonged  to  the  class  for  whom  the  high  ecclesias- 
tical authorities  of  Judaism  had  nothing  but 
curses  and  contempt  (John  vii.,  49). 

Peter  was  one  of  the  original  Twelve;  that  is, 
one  of  those  who  were  first  called  to  follow  the 
Master.  It  has  been  generally  assumed,  contrary 
to  the  record  as  I  read  it,  that  the  Twelve  consti- 
tuted practically  an  unchangeable  body ;  that  with 
the  single  exception  of  Judas  Iscariot  that  body 
continued  to  the  end  as  at  first  composed.  The 
name  of  at  least  one  other  of  the  original  twelve, 
Lebbaeus  or  Thaddaeus  (Matt,  x.,  3),  disappears 
in  the  subsequent  history,  and  his  place  is  taken 
by  Jude,  who,  with  James  the  Less,  was  a  son  of 
Alph^us  (Luke  vi.,  15;  R.  V.  marg.).  The  idea 
generally  accepted  that  these  are  different  names 
of  the  same  person  is  a  pure  theory,  is  against 
probability,  and  has  no  historical  support.  And 
the  same  is  equally  true  of  the  supposed  identity 
of  Nathanael  and  Bartholomew.  This  is  purely 
a  supposition,  without  a  particle  of  proof  to  support 
it. 

For  some  reason  not  stated  in  the  record, 
perhaps  by  seniority  or  age,  or  perhaps  by  natural 
temperament,  Peter  became,  on  most  occasions, 
the  spokesman  of  the  apostoHc  band.     I  would  not 


132  Peter 

say  of  him,  as  is  frequently  said,  that  he  was 
especially  rash  or  impulsive ;  he  was  rather  what  I 
would  call  self-reliant,  being  also  quick  to  decide 
and  prompt  to  act.  Such  men  are  natural  leaders 
in  all  organizations.  He  beHeved  in  himself,  and 
sometimes  overbelieved,  as  the  sequel  proved. 
If,  during  his  personal  association  with  the  Master, 
he  sometimes  was  "of  little  faith"  (Matt,  xiv.,  31), 
it  is  not  for  us  to  censure  him  more  severely  than 
the  Master  did,  for  Messianic  faith  was  then  a  new 
plant,  quite  recently  planted  in  soil  not  of  the  best 
for  a  rapid  growth.  But  after  the  Pentecostal 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  faith  then  developed 
in  Peter,  coupled  with  the  natural  self-reliance  of 
his  manhood,  easily  made  him  the  first  among  his 
peers,  and  one  of  the  three,  who,  under  the  name 
of  Cephas,  presently  attained  the  name  and  rank 
of  "pillars"  in  the  apostolic  church  (Gal.  ii.,  9). 
His  discourses,  as  reported  by  Luke  (Acts  ii., 
14-40;  iii.,  12-26,  etc.),  are  models  of  bold,  lofty, 
and  fervid  eloquence,  supported  by  compact 
argument.  They  express  in  brief  terms  the  great 
essential  ideas  of  salvation,  persuasively  illustrated 
from  prophecy,  and  convincingly  driven  home  to 
the  hearts  and  consciences  of  his  hearers.  These 
facts  lead  fairly  to  the  inference  that  he  was  natur- 
ally a  born  leader  of  men,  and  that  in  his  dull  and 
toilsome  occupation  of  fisherman  his  opportunities 
for  leadership  had  not  equaled  his  abilities. 

Notwithstanding  his  faults  and  defects,  Peter 
was  one  of  the  three  selected  by  the  Master  to  be 


Peter  i33 

the  chief  recipients  of  His  personal  confidence. 
They  only  were  permitted  to  witness  the  glory  of 
His  wonderful  transfiguration  (Matt,  xvii.,  1-13). 
They  were  also  the  selected  watchmen  on  whom  He 
relied  to  warn  Him  of  the  approach  of  His  expected 
betrayer  at  the  time  of  His  agony  in  Gethsemane 
(Matt,  xxvi.,  37).  At  the  healing  of  Jairus's 
daughter,  no  others  were  allowed  to  be  present 
(Mark  v.,  37).  No  reason  is  assigned  for  this 
choice,  but  Jesus,  the  Master,  undoubtedly  knew 
His  men  (John  ii.,  25).  They  were  probably 
' '  the  pick  of  the  flock.  * '  Their  subsequent  history 
would  indicate  as  much.  With  the  exception  of 
Matthew  (in  his  Gospel)  and  Jude  (in  his  Epistle), 
the  other  nine  have  left  no  record  or  known  memo- 
rial of  their  subsequent  lives  or  labors.  Of  the 
three.  James  was  an  early  victim  of  Herod's 
brutality  (Acts  xii. ,  2) .  To  John  was  entrusted  the 
double  honor  of  closing  the  New  Testament  canon 
(Rev.  xxii.,  18,  19)  and  of  being  the  last  to  await, 
in  an  earthly  life,  the  second  coming  of  the  Master 
(John  xxi.,  22).  The  subsequent  life  and  labors 
of  Peter  show  that  the  Master's  confidence  in  him 
was  not  wholly  misplaced,  and  that  he  was  entitled 
to  rank  as  the  coequal  of  the  other  two  in  the 
honors  and  work  of  the  new  kingdom  of  heaven. 
In  making  our  estimate  of  the  man,  his  denial  of 
the  Master  should  not  be  passed  by.  For  once 
his  self-reliance  failed  him,  and  it  was  a  sad  and  a 
grievous  failure — but  was  it  a  surprising  failure? 
He  was  at  that  time  a  comparative  stranger  in 


134  Peter 

Jerusalem;  it  was  not  his  home;  he  had  been  there 
but  seldom,  probably  once  a  year,  and  then  only  a 
short  time;  the  high  priest  and  his  august  court 
were  to  him  the  objects  of  overwhelming  awe,  for 
they  represented  the  invincible  authority  and  ma- 
jesty of  the  great  Jehovah;  the  Roman  soldiery 
who  made  the  arrest  were  subjects  of  terror,  since, 
being  generally  brutal  themselves,  they  also  stood 
for  the  brutal  and  domineering  power  of  Rome 
(Luke  xiii.,  i);  Peter  himself  was  nothing  but  a 
peasant  fisherman  of  the  despised  province  of 
semi-heathen  Galilee;  the  drift  of  adverse  feeling 
against  the  GaHlean  Jesus  and  all  his  followers 
ran  high  that  awful  night;  even  the  servants  and 
waiting-maids  of  the  palace  joined  eagerly  in  the 
** mad-dog"  cry  against  Him  and  them,  so  that 
when  they  sneeringly  and  contemptuously  asked 
Peter,  "Art  thou  too  a  Galilean,  and  a  follower 
of  this  deceiver  of  the  people?"  the  load  was  too 
heavy  for  him  to  carry,  and  he  broke  down. 
Would  you  or  I,  being  what  he  then  was,  and  amid 
such  surroundings,  have  done  better? 

It  is  no  answer  to  all  this  to  say  that  John  was 
faithful  and  stood  by  his  Master  during  the  events 
of  that  awful  night,  and  that  Peter  might  equally 
well  have  done  so.  For,  as  John  himself  tells  us, 
he  did  not  enter  the  palace  of  the  high  priest  as  a 
total  stranger;  in  fact,  the  high  priest  knew  him 
personally  (John  xviii.,  i6).  For  this  or  some 
other  reason,  John  was  evidently  less  impressed, 
overawed,  or  terrified  by  the  unexpected  surround- 


Peter  135 

ings  and  proceedings.  His  actions  show  that  he 
was  enough  at  home  to  think  of  himself,  to  think 
of  the  Master,  and  to  think  also  of  Peter,  whom  he 
recognized  in  the  crowd  outside  the  gate,  and  that 
he  had  enough  influence  to  secure  Peter's  admission 
notwithstanding  the  probable  orders  to  exclude 
the  Galilean  friends  of  Jesus.  Hence,  in  respect 
of  Peter's  denial,  it  is  hardly  fair  to  judge  him  by 
the  standard  of  John's  fidelity. 

Nor  should  Peter  be  singled  out,  as  is  usually 
done,  as  being,  next  after  Judas,  the  chief  sinner 
of  the  apostoHc  band.  The  rest,  except  John, 
deserted  Jesus  entirely  (Matt,  xxvi.,  56).  Peter 
was  the  only  one  to  resist  by  force  the  outrage  of 
the  betrayal  and  arrest  (John  xviii.,  10),  and  he  was 
evidently  the  only  one  who  ventured  to  show  his 
face  that  night  at  the  palace  gate.  The  rest 
disappear  from  sight  and  history  till  after  Jesus 
was  dead  and  buried  and  the  immediate  danger 
to  them  was  past.  While  these  facts  constitute 
no  extenuation  of  Peter's  sin,  they  show  that  even 
in  those  hours  of  extreme  peril  his  self-reliant 
courage  was  not  entirely  gone,  and  exceeded  that 
of  any  of  the  remaining  nine. 

If  not  surprising,  it  is  at  least  noticeable  that 
many  of  our  modern  religious  teachers  are  more 
severe  in  dealing  with  Peter's  shortcomings  than 
was  the  Master  Himself.  With  marked  gentleness 
and  even  tenderness,  Jesus  uniformly  dealt  with 
the  errors  and  defects  of  this,  the  chief  est  of  His 
followers.     (See   Matt,   xiv.,    31,   32;   John  xxi., 


136  Peter 

15-19,   etc.)     Only  once,   so  far  as  our  records 
show,  did  Jesus  speak  to  Peter  with  apparent  sever- 
ity (Mark  viii.,  32,  33),  and  here,  I  apprehend,  the 
severity  is  more  apparent  than  real.     The  phrase 
"Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan"  was  probably  an 
everyday  proverb  in  common  use  (and  we  still 
hear  it  used  occasionally)  and,  as  then  used  by 
Jesus,  was  intended  to  convey  the  idea  that  Peter's 
expostulations  could  be  of  no  avail  and  need  not 
be  repeated.  Certainly  Jesus  could  not  have  ap- 
plied to  His  chief  apostle,  in  its  literal  significa- 
tion, the  name  of  the  Evil  One.     Such  language, 
with  such  a  meaning,   would  have  involved  in 
Jewish  thought  the  grossest  possible  discourtesy; 
and  it  pleases  me  to  think  of  Jesus,  not  only  as  the 
Son  of  God,  but  also  as  a  perfect  man,  and  hence 
an  ideal  gentleman  in  speech  as  well  as  in  act.     He 
once  denounced,  with  furious  invective,  a  like  char- 
acterization of  Himself  by  his  enemies  (Matt,  xii., 
24-32).     To  my  mind  it  is  simply  incredible,  at 
least  in  the  absence  of  convincing  proof  to  the  con- 
trary, that  He  should  have  literally  appHed  to  His 
strongest  and  one  of  His  most  faithful  adherents 
an  opprobrious  epithet  such  as  He  would  not  allow 
His  bitterest  enemies  to  apply  to  Him.     Jesus  of 
Nazareth  was  not,  in  my  apprehension  of  Him, 
that  kind  of  a  man. 

For  some  twelve  or  fourteen  years  after  the 
ascension  Peter  devoted  himself  actively  and 
vigorously,  and  with  great  success,  to  the  preaching 
of  the  new  reHgion,  for  the  most  part  to  his  own 


Peter  I37 

countrymen  in  the  cities  and  villages  of  Judaea,  as 
narrated  with  some  detail  in  the  Book  of  Acts, 
but  going  once  as  far  as  Samaria  (Acts  viii.,  14-17). 
The  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  rested  with  him  to  a 
remarkable  degree,  and  the  many  miracles  which 
he  wrought  in  the  name  of  the  Master  made  an 
impression  second  only  to  those  of  the  Master 
Himself  (Acts  iii.,  1-9;  v.,  12-16;  ix.,  26-42,  etc.)- 
His  escape  from  the  power  of  Herod  by  angelic 
interposition  was  equally  memorable  (Acts  xii., 
1-9).  The  narrative  of  these  events  is  the  most 
convincing  proof  of  the  power  of  the  man  in  the 
new  work,  as  well  as  of  the  sincerity  of  his  conse- 
cration to  that  work ;  and  we  doubt  not  that  to  him 
these  events  were  an  abundant  assurance  that  the 
new  kingdom  to  the  establishment  of  which  he 
gave  his  remaining  years  would,  as  Daniel  had 
foretold,  "never  be  destroyed"  (Dan.  ii.,  44). 
His  self-reliance,  backed  up  by  faith  in  its  success, 
never  deserted  him  again. 

During  these  years,  the  power  of  the  new 
religion  began  to  be  felt  among  the  Gentiles. 
Christian  churches  were  established  at  an  early 
date  outside  of  Judaism,  notably  in  Samaria 
(Acts  viii.,  14)  and  Antioch  (Acts  xiii.,  i).  If 
Peter  were  then,  as  he  seems  to  have  been,  the 
primate  of  the  apostolic  college,  he  presumably 
would  have  taken  the  supervision  of  these  Gentile 
churches,  as  well  as  of  the  Palestinian  churches 
composed  of  converts  from  Judaism.  Unfor- 
tunately,  however,   he   seems   to   have   been   so 


138  Peter 

thoroughly  pervaded  with  the  prevalent  Jewish 
prejudice  against  Gentile  contamination  that  he 
could  give  to  the  Gentile  movement  but  little  more 
than  a  bare  toleration.  He  thrice  boasted,  in 
answer  to  what  he  recognized  as  a  voice  from 
heaven,  of  his  Pharisaic  purity  (Acts  x.,  13-16). 
He  had  no  use,  not  even  in  the  Master's  service, 
for  anything  which,  tried  by  the  ceremonial  stand- 
ard of  Judaism,  was  ''common  and  unclean" — 
and  such  were  the  Gentiles  in  his  eyes.  And 
though  as  a  result  of  the  miraculous  vision,  he 
temporarily  accepted  the  new  revelation  that  in 
God's  sight  those  of  the  Gentiles  who  feared  Him 
and  wrought  righteousness  (Acts  x.,  35)  were  no 
longer  to  be  counted  as  "common  and  unclean," 
it  still  appears  that  as  a  rule  by  which  to  govern  his 
own  apostolic  work  he  could  not,  or  at  least  did 
not,  adopt  it.  With  apparent  wilHngness,  he 
turned  over  to  Paul  the  entire  field  of  Gentile 
work  (Gal.  ii.,  9),  and  so  far  as  extant  records 
show,  he  never  resumed  it,  nor  made  any  effort  or 
claim  in  that  direction.  His  right  of  primacy, 
at  least  among  the  Gentile  churches  (of  which  we 
are  part),  ended  then  and  there.  We  hear  of 
him  once  afterward  at  Antioch,  but  his  Jewish 
prejudices  were  too  strong  for  his  Christianity, 
and  he  was  publicly  and  severely  rebuked  for  his 
non-Christian  bigotry  by  one  who  in  the  Gentile 
churches,  possessed  and  exercised  an  authority 
greater  than  his  (Gal.  ii.,  11-14).  If,  in  respect 
of  Gentile  Christianity,  any  one  was  entitled  in 


Peter  139 

the  apostolic  age,  to  claim  or  exercise  the  authority 
incident  to  primacy,  that  man  was  Paul  and  not 
Peter.     As  to  that  fact,  the  record  is  clear. 

In  regard  to  the  question  of  primacy  in  the 
church,  it  seems  reasonably  clear  that  Peter  was 
the  primate  among  the  Twelve,  and  that  such 
primacy  received  the  approval  of  the  Master;  the 
episode  of  the  rock  and  keys  apparently  means 
as  much  (Matt,  xvi.,  18,  19).  The  Biblical  records 
alsa  seem  to  indicate  that  for  a  few  years  following 
the  ascension,  he  acted  as  primate  of  the  new 
churches  in  Palestine.  It  also  clearly  appears  that 
therein  he  was  afterward  superseded  by  James,  a 
brother  of  our  Lord  and  not  one  of  the  Twelve, 
but  by  what  authority  is  not  known  (Acts  xii.,  17; 
XV.,  13;  xxi.,  18,  etc.).  After  that,  his  primacy, 
if  he  held  any,  was  apparently  limited  to  the 
churches  which  grew  up  among  the  Jews  of  the 
dispersion — that  is,  among  the  Jews  scattered 
about  through  the  Roman  Empire,  and  most 
numerous  in  the  cities  of  Asia  Minor  (I.  Pet.  i.,  i). 
But  I  do  not  find,  either  in  the  Bible  or  outside  of 
it,  that  Peter  ever  was  granted,  or  claimed  to  hold, 
or  tried  to  exercise,  any  authority  as  primate  (or 
pope)  over  any  Gentile  church,  and  still  less  over 
the  Gentile  churches  at  large,  or  that  he  was 
granted,  or  claimed  to  possess,  or  tried  to  exercise 
in  or  over  any  church  whatever  any  right  of  pri- 
macy which  was  divinely  authorized  or  directed 
to  be  transferred  to  any  ecclesiastical  successor 
of  his. 


140  Peter 

When,  through  the  power  of  divine  grace 
working  in  the  hearts  of  men,  a  church  shall  arise 
which  shall  include  in  its  fold  the  entire  body  of 
genuine  believers  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  I  have 
no  doubt  that  it  may  (if  it  so  choose),  under 
divine  guidance  and  authority,  elect  or  select  a 
primate,  a  patriarch,  or  a  pope,  and  that  its  power 
(not  his)  will  be  practically  unlimited  in  all  matters 
of  faith  and  morals.  But  such  a  church,  called 
in  the  Apostles'  Creed  "The  Holy  Catholic 
Church,"  is  at  present  non-existent,  except  as  an 
ideal.  The  sectarian  divisions  in  "the  body  of 
Christ"  which  Paul  so  vehemently  condemned 
(I.  Cor.  i.,  12,  13;  iii.,  4-7)  are  now  the  rule,  have 
been  for  centuries,  and  seem  likely  to  be  for  a 
long  time  to  come.  "When  the  Son  of  man 
cometh,  shall  He  find  faith  on  the  earth?"  (Luke 
xviii.,  8.) 

As  incidental  to  some  of  the  matters  above 
referred  to,  it  may  be  added  that  questions  of 
official  name  and  ecclesiastical  rank  were  not 
regarded  as  of  much  importance  in  the  church  in 
apostolic  days.  Paul's  right  to  the  title  of  apostle, 
though  he  was  not  one  of  the  Twelve,  is  univer- 
sally admitted.  James,  "the  Lord's  brother,'* 
who,  at  least  during  the  earlier  days  of  Christ's 
ministry,  was  an  unbeliever  (John  vii.,  5)  ranked 
as  an  apostle  (Gal.  i.,  19).  So  also  did  Barnabas 
(Acts  xiv.,  14) ;  and  it  seems  probable  that  Androni- 
cus  and  Junias  were  similarly  styled  (Rom.  xvi., 
7).    Evidently  these  matters  were  bound  by  no 


Peter  141 

hard  and  fast  lines.  On  the  other  hand,  Peter, 
in  addressing  the  elders  of  the  churches  of  the 
dispersion,  was  pleased  to  call  himself  their  ''fellow- 
elder"  (I.  Pet.  v.,  i). 

Our  present  rigidity  in  respect  of  ecclesiastical 
rank  was  evidently  unknown  in  the  apostolic  era 
of  church  history.  The  ''elders"  of  Acts  xx.,  17, 
are  called  "bishops"  in  xx.,  28. 

Of  Peter's  subsequent  life  we  know  but  little 
outside  of  what  we  can  gather  from  his  epistles, 
but  from  them  we  may  fairly  infer  that  he  labored 
diHgently  and  effectively  for  the  residue  of  his 
life  among  the  Jews  of  the  dispersion,  chiefly  in 
the  region  we  now  know  as  Asia  Minor,  and  more 
particularly  in  its  central  and  northern  provinces. 
His  first  epistle  is  specifically  so  addressed  (I. 
Pet.  i.,  i).  His  second  epistle  was  written  for  the 
same  readers  (II.  Pet.  iii.,  i).  These  epistles, 
written  in  his  old  age,  indicate  that  the  self-reliant 
zeal  of  his  earlier  years  had  become  toned  down 
into  something  approaching  the  gentle  tenderness  of 
John.  But  he  also  exhibits  a  masterly  grasp  of 
the  truths  of  revelation,  and  a  vsingular  clearness, 
beauty,  and  force  in  presenting  them.  Some 
Gentiles  had  been  gathered  in,  and  as  to  them,  his 
old  antipathy  was  gone  (I.  Pet.  iv.,  3).  But  not 
even  yet  was  he  ready  to  accept  the  whole  of  Paul's 
gospel  (II.  Pet.  iii.,  15,  16).  He  could  not  see  how 
it  could  all  be  true.  Whether  Babylon  (I.  Pet.  v., 
13)  means  the  Chaldean  city  of  that  name,  or  is 
a  metaphorical  designation  of  Rome — as  in  Rev. 


142  Peter 

xviii.,  2 — is  somewhat  uncertain.  If  the  former, 
as  may  well  be  the  case,  for  that  city  then  held 
a  large  Jewish  population,  his  missionary  labors 
extended  nearly  or  quite  to  the  ancestral  home  of 
his  race.  But  if  the  latter  be  the  meaning,  it 
would  give  support  to  the  old  tradition  that  he 
suffered  death  by  crucifixion  at  the  hands  of  Nero 
about  A.D.  68.  If  so,  the  prophecy  of  John  xxi., 
18,  19,  was  literally  fulfilled.  But  Romans  xv.,  20, 
is  incompatible  with  the  old  tradition  that  he 
founded  the  first  Christian  church  at  Rome. 

Early  Christian  literature,  commencing  late 
in  the  second  century  A.D.,  and  increasing  in 
amount  as  the  decades  went  by,  abounds  with 
traditional  and  apocryphal  stories  of  Peter  and  his 
life-teachings.  Very  few  of  them  are  worthy  of 
belief,  though  some  may  possibly  be  true;  but  as 
the  true  cannot,  with  our  present  knowledge,  be 
separated  from  the  false,  the  entire  body  is  of  no 
practical  value  for  present  purposes.  Peter,  as 
the  Bible  sketches  him,  is  too  great  to  be  injured 
by  dubious  tradition,  and  is  also  great  enough  to 
require  no  enhancement  of  his  memory  by  doubtful 
records  dating  from  two  to  ten  centuries  after  he 
had  gone  to  his  final  rest. 


THE   RESURRECTION:   THE   FUTURE 
STATE:  MESSIANIC  PROPHECY 

In  the  development  of  Old  Testament  religion, 
these  three  subjects  have  certain  points  of  contact 
which  may  be  profitably  studied  independently 
of  the  subjects  themselves. 

Biblical  scholars  have  been  greatly  puzzled  to 
account  for  the  fact  that  the  doctrine  of  a  general 
resurrection,  and  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and 
punishments,  formed  no  part  of  the  Mosaic  system ; 
for  the  fact  is,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  that  the 
Old  Testament  contains  no  clear  revelation  thereof 
imtil  more  than  a  thousand  years  after  Moses  had 
rested  from  his  arduous  labors.  If  any  of  the 
Old  Testament  worthies  had,  prior  to  the  captivity 
(B.C.  587),  any  expectation  or  hope  of  a  resurrec- 
tion, or  of  an  enjoyable  life  after  death,  they  cer- 
tainly failed  to  transmit  to  us  any  clear  and 
unambiguous  record  of  the  fact.  And  the  absence 
of  these  elements  from  the  original  Mosaic  system 
is  all  the  more  singular  for  the  reason  that  the 
Egyptians,  as  we  learn  from  their  Book  of  the  Dead, 
had  a  highly  elaborate  cultus  which  included  a 
life  after  death  (though  not  at  that  time  a  resurrec- 
tion), and  a  life,  too,  the  character  of  which  was 

143 


144  The  Resurrection 

believed  to  depend  largely  on  "the  deeds  done  in 
the  body."  Moses,  as  one  ''learned  in  all  the 
wisdom  of  the  Egyptians"  (Acts  vii.,  22),  could 
not  have  been  ignorant  of  this  feature  of  the  reh- 
gious  system  in  which,  as  a  prince  of  Egypt,  he  had 
been  trained ;  nor  is  it  easy  to  see  how  a  man  of  his 
transcendent  attainments  could  have  failed  to 
appreciate  the  possible  potency  of  such  a  belief 
in  the  moral  system  that  he  formulated  and  taught. 

Why,  then,  did  he  fail  to  include  it  in  the  record 
that  he  left  for  the  guidance  of  his  people? 

The  most  reasonable  explanation  hitherto  sug- 
gested, so  far  as  my  reading  has  gone,  is  based 
on  the  following  facts: 

The  reHgious  system  of  Moses  originated  prac- 
tically with  what  was  seen,  said,  and  done  at 
Mount  Sinai  just  after  the  Exodus.  Prior  to  the 
wonderful  event  of  that  epoch,  Jehovah  was  a 
name  imknown  in  the  annals  of  the  Hebrew  race 
(Ex.  vi.,  3). 

But  on  coming  to  Mount  Sinai,  they  were 
expressly  taught  that  the  Deity  who  had  brought 
them  out  of  Egypt — then  and  thereafter  known  as 
Jehovah  (or  Jahve) — had  His  home  or  dwelling- 
place  there  on  the  mountain-top,  and  that  the 
thunderings  and  lightnings  which  they  then  heard 
and  saw  were  the  proofs  of  His  presence.  They 
were  also  taught  that  He  was  so  actually  and 
personally  there  present  that  their  leader  Moses 
had  sundry  interviews  with  Him,  wherein  He  made 
known  to  them  by  direct  revelation  the  kind  of 


The  Resurrection  145 

service  He  required  at  their  hands,  as  well  as  the 
laws  or  rules  of  life  to  which  they  must  conform 
if  they  would  please  Him;  and  they  were  further 
told  that  if  they  obeyed  Him,  He  would  care  for 
and  prosper  them  in  basket  and  in  store,  in  life  and 
in  health ;  while,  if  they  disobeyed  Him,  He  would 
punish  them  by  withholding  these  promised 
bounties,  and,  if  need  were,  by  famine,  pestilence, 
and  war,  even  to  the  extent  of  wiping  them  out 
of  existence.  He  was  great  and  powerful,  and 
therefore  could  do  as  He  had  promised. 

He  was  just  and  truthful,  so  that  He  being  always 
there  present  with  them,  they  might  rely  on  it 
that  He  would  do  exactly  as  He  had  said. 

In  the  polytheism  of  that  age — and  the  people 
had  just  given  up  the  polytheistic  service  of  the 
gods  of  Egypt  (Josh,  xxiv.,  14) — such  a  Deity  as 
Jehovah  thus  described  and  showed  Himself  to  be 
was  exceedingly  desirable;  consequently  they  took 
up  His  service,  and  entered  into  covenant  or 
contract  relations  with  Him  by  which  they  became 
especially  and  peculiarly  His  people,  and  He 
became  their  Deity — their  God. 

But  when,  a  year  or  more  later,  they  proposed  to 
resume  their  journey  to  the  Promised  Land,  what 
then?  The  idea  of  divine  omnipresence — so 
prominent  a  part  of  our  later  theology — had  not 
then  been  born.  If  Jehovah  remained  behind  at 
His  home  on  Mount  Sinai,  how  could  He  be  of  any 
aid  or  benefit  to  them  while  off  in  their  desert 
wanderings,    or  after  reaching   their  anticipated 


146  The  Resurrection 

resting-place  in  Canaan?  Obviously,  as  they 
looked  at  it,  Jehovah  must  go  along,  and  the 
record  so  represents  (Ex.  xxiii.,  14).  A  tent  at 
Shiloh,  and  finally  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  be- 
came His  home,  and  He  continued — or  so  it  was 
thought — to  dwell  with  and  in  the  midst  of  the 
tribes  for  the  next  nine  hundred  years,  or  until 
the  temple  was  destroyed  and  the  city  laid  waste 
by  Nebuchadnezzar,  B.C.  587.  But  as  it  was 
believed  that  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  were  in- 
vulnerable to  human  attack  so  long  as  Jehovah 
dwelt  there,  Ezekiel  was  constrained  to  conclude 
that  before  the  city  fell  Jehovah  had  taken  His 
departure  (Ezek.  x.,  18-22).  During  the  captivity, 
the  land  remained  desolate,  that  is,  empty,  for 
Jehovah  had  gone.  And  at  its  end  Ezekiel  made 
known  to  the  returning  exiles  his  vision  of  the 
return  of  Jehovah  to  the  new  temple — "and  I  will 
dwell  in  the  midst  of  them  for  ever"  (Ezek.  xliii., 

1-9). 

According  to  Jewish  belief,  Jehovah  continued 
thereafter  to  dwell  in  His  temple  until  the  voice 
of  prophecy  finally  became  silent  with  Malachi. 
From  that  time,  say  about  330  B.C.,  until  the 
manifestation  of  the  Son  of  Man,  no  divine  oracle 
was  heard  in  Judaea — of  which  fact  I  will  have 
more  to  say  presently. 

From  which  it  follows  that  from  the  institution 
of  the  Mosaic  system  down  to  the  end  of  the 
prophetic  period  (except  during  the  capitivity 
or  exile),  and  possibly  for  some  little  time  there- 


The  Future  State  147 

after,  the  Jews  regarded  themselves  as  living  in 
the  immediate  presence  of  Jehovah;  they  beheved 
that  He  actually  dwelt  first  in  the  sacred  tent  or 
tabernacle  in  the  wilderness,  then  at  Shiloh,  and 
lastly  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem — but  always 
right  ''in  the  midst  of  them";  that,  though  in- 
visible to  mortal  eyes,  the  Shekinah  indicated  His 
presence ;  that  accordingly  their  lives  and  everyday 
actions  were  under  His  direct  personal  supervision ; 
that  for  their  honest  service  and  faithful  obedience 
He  gave  them  then  and  there  their  proper  reward, 
and  for  their  disloyalty  and  disobedience  He  then 
and  there  punished  them.  Moses  had  so  taught 
them,  and  so  did  the  early  prophets.  Under  such 
beliefs  and  such  teachings,  a  future  state  of  rewards 
and  punishments,  even  if  revealed,  would  have 
had  little  or  no  meaning  for  them.  Jehovah 
could  be  no  closer  to  them  in  another  world  than 
He  was  in  this.  Nor  could  He  have  any  more 
power  over  them  there,  either  to  prosper  or  punish, 
than  He  had  here.  If  He  rewarded  and  punished 
them  here,  as  they  fully  believed,  then  He  and  His 
law  were  presumed  to  be  satisfied.  It  could 
hardly  be  supposed  that  after  death  He  would 
reward  and  punish  them  over  again.  One  punish- 
ment was  enough,  and  one  reward  was  all  they  had 
any  right  to  expect.  Consequently  they  had  no 
sufficient  incitement  or  stimulus  to  lead  them  to 
anticipate  or  even  to  desire  a  future  life,  and  none 
was  revealed,  so  far  as  we  know. 

Besides  all  this,  the  idea,  now  so  common  with 


148  The  Future  State 

us,  of  personal  or  individual  responsibility  for 
wrongs  done  or  sins  committed  entered  but 
feebly  into  the  apprehension  of  the  Jewish  people 
prior  to  or  about  the  time  of  the  captivity.  In 
the  thought  of  that  day,  the  nation  was  the  unit, 
and  not  the  individual.  Each  person  was  an 
integer  of  value  only  as  he  was  one  of  the  nation. 
Hence,  logically,  it  resulted  that  the  nation  was 
generally  held  responsible  for  the  sins  of  its 
individual  members.  Thus  the  personal  sin  of 
Achan  (Josh,  vii.)  was  regarded  as  the  cause  of  the 
disastrous  defeat  of  the  national  army.  The  loss 
of  the  sacred  ark,  followed  by  the  humiliating 
domination  of  the  detested  PhiHstines,  was  closely 
associated  with  the  gross  derelictions  of  Eli  and 
the  grosser  sins  of  his  sons  (I.  Sam.  ii.,  34).  And 
once,  when  David's  ambition  got  the  better  of  his 
judgment,  Jehovah  is  represented  as  visiting  a 
severe  but  just  retribution,  not  on  David  himself, 
as  our  modem  ideas  would  have  demanded,  but 
on  the  people  at  large  (II.  Sam.  xxiv.).  Such 
illustrations  are  of  frequent  occurrence  in  their 
history.  But  obviously,  a  nation,  as  such,  could 
not  be  punished  in  a  future  world,  nor  rewarded 
either — at  least  the  Jews  never  thought  of  such  a 
thing  as  possible.  No  more  do  we.  Consequently 
a  revelation  to  them  of  a  future  state  of  rewards 
and  punishments  for  the  nation — and  it  could  have 
meant  nothing  more — would  to  them  have  been 
practically  meaningless. 

And   consequently,    as   a   Jew,    under   such   a 


The  Future  State  149 

system  or  theory  of  belief,  would  personall}'-  have 
had  no  use  for  a  future  state,  he  would  have 
nothing  to  suggest  a  resiirrection,  nor  any  con- 
scious reason  for  expecting  or  even  desiring  one. 

Now,  the  idea  that  each  individual  was  himself 
(instead  of  the  nation)  primarily  accountable  for 
his  own  misdeeds,  and  that  he  was  entitled  to  or 
might  expect  a  personal  reward  for  a  Hfe  conformed 
to  Jehovah's  will,  though  occasionally  hinted  at  by 
the  earlier  prophets,  was  fully  and  unambiguously 
set  forth  for  the  first  time  by  Ezekiel  (chap,  xviii.) 
during  the  period  of  the  captivity,  nearly  a  thou- 
sand years  after  the  time  of  Moses.  Until  about 
that  time  such  an  idea  had  not  become  a  fixed  or 
controlling  element  in  Jewish  national  thought  and 
life.  But  as  soon  as  this,  which  was  about  that 
time  a  practically  new  revelation,  became  fully 
apprehended  and  understood,  it  was  felt  that  there 
were  hosts  of  individual  wrongs  that  were  never 
righted  or  avenged  in  this  world ;  and  still  further, 
it  was  noted  that  the  lives  of  the  just  were  often 
lives  of  unmerited  privation  and  suffering,  on 
account  of  which  there  ought  to  be  for  such  persons 
some  future  good  in  store. 

Instinctively  a  fixed  longing  arose  for  another 
life,  personal  in  its  character,  in  which  the  wicked 
would  be  punished  and  the  righteous  would  be 
rewarded.  The  revelation  of  Daniel  of  a  resurrec- 
tion and  of  a  future  life  soon  followed  (Dan.  xii., 
1-3),  and  presently  this  doctrine  became  a  con- 
stituent element  of  the  faith  of  the  Jewish  church. 


150  Messianic  Prophecy 

The  date  of  this  great  revelation  cannot  now  be 
definitely  fixed,  but  approximately  it  was  some- 
what more  than  a  thousand  years  after  the  time 
of  Moses  and  about  three  or  four  hundred  years 
prior  to  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era. 

Now,  while  this  may  not  be  the  real  explanation 
of  why  Moses  made  no  revelation  of  a  resurrection 
and  a  future  life,  it  would  at  least  seem  to  be  a 
sufficient  explanation,  and  one  which  is  apparently 
true.  How  does  Messianic  prophecy  stand  related 
to  these  facts? 

Commencing  with  the  grossly  idolatrous  and 
thoroughly  corrupt  reign  of  Manasseh  (b.c.  697), 
the  Jewish  nation  started  on  a  course  of  policy 
which  could  have  no  other  than  a  fatal  result. 
The  prophets,  who  usually  were  skilled  in  politics 
as  well  as  in  rehgion,  foresaw  and  predicted  the 
end — the  loss  of  patriotism ;  and  a  nation  which  has 
lost  both  its  rehgion  and  its  patriotism  is  not 
worth  saving.  There  could  be  but  one  result. 
The  nation,  from  a  race  of  heroes,  as  in  the  days 
of  David  and  Joab  and  Jehoshaphat,  had  degenera- 
ted into  a  race  of  cowards.  It  only  remained  to 
be  seen  which  of  the  Great  Powers  of  that  day — 
Egypt  or  Syria  or  Nineveh  or  Babylon — would 
subdue  and  take  it  in.  Such,  in  a  general  way, 
was  the  condition  of  things  during  the  period 
commencing  with  the  early  prophets  Hosea  and 
Isaiah,  say  in  the  seventh  century  B.C.,  and  con- 
tinuing, but  each  decade  growing  worse  (except 
for  a  few  years  under  Josiah) ,  down  to  the  time  of 


Messianic  Prophecy  151 

Jeremiah,  who,  in  the  last  chapter  of  his  prophecy, 
makes  record  of  the  calamitous  result  which  for 
years  he  had  foreseen  and  against  which  he  had, 
without  avail,  given  ample  warning.  The  city 
and  temple  were  destroyed,  and  the  people  were 
carried  captive  to  Bab^don. 

The  Jews,  in  one  respect  at  least,  were  like 
ourselves — in  times  of  prosperity  they  took  little 
or  no  thought  for  the  future.  But  as  the  coming 
disasters,  which  finally  overwhelmed  them,  began 
to  cast  their  shadows  before,  the  prophets  saw 
beyond  the  darkening  gloom  a  brighter  and  a 
better  day,  which  would  be  ushered  in  after  their 
calamities  had  gone  by.  The  nation  could  not 
escape  the  awful  punishment  which  it  so  richly 
deserved;  but  after  that  was  over  and  past,  there 
was  a  future  of  glory  still  beyond.  Out  of  the 
promises  and  assurances  thus  made  grew  up  the 
Messianic  hope,  which,  gradually  taking  shape 
and  form  as  the  years  of  the  captivity  went  by, 
became  a  source  of  dominant  consolation  and 
cheer  to  the  devout  followers  of  Jehovah.  If, 
during  the  captivity,  Jehovah  had  deserted  His 
temple  and  abandoned  His  people  to  their  fate, 
the  royal  house  of  David  being  involved,  as  clearly 
it  was,  in  the  general  ruin  of  the  nation,  Melek- 
Messiah — a  King-Messiah — would  assuredly  come, 
combining  the  divine  power  of  the  great  Jehovah 
and  the  kingly  prestige  of  David  to  deliver  them 
from  their  enemies  and  to  establish  a  kingdom  of 
heaven  which  should  extend  throughout  all  the 


152  Messianic  Prophecy 

earth  and  last  to  the  end  of  time.  This  is  the 
tinderlying  thought  in  the  New  Testament  song 
of  Zacharias  (Luke  i.,  68-79). 

Such,  as  I  read  the  history  of  those  ancient  days, 
was  the  origin  of  the  Messianic  hope  in  the  Jewish 
nation.  It,  as  well  as  the  hope  of  a  resurrection 
and  of  a  future  life,  arose  out  of  the  calamities 
that  culminated  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  exile  or  captivity  of  the  nation.  The 
necessities  of  the  times  created  a  new  exigency  in 
human  affairs,  and  opened  the  door  for  a  new 
revelation,  which  accordingly  followed. 

During  the  time  between  Ezekiel  and  Malachi, 
a  period,  say,  of  about  250  years,  the  idea  that 
Jehovah,  though  maintaining  a  sort  of  earthly 
residence  in  Jerusalem,  really  dwelt  in  heaven, 
gradually  became  a  settled  part  of  the  beHef  of 
the  Jews;  but  as  the  prophet  continued  to  be 
His  personal  representative,  they  still  regarded 
themselves  as  under  His  direct  guidance  and 
control.  The  Messianic  hope,  already  in  existence 
as  above  explained,  was  not  forgotten,  and  in  the 
time  of  Malachi  it  met  with  a  new  reason  for 
existence,  and  consequently  received  a  new 
stimulus.  For  according  to  this  book,  though 
Jehovah  is  not  represented  as  again  taking  His 
departure  from  Jerusalem  and  the  temple,  He  is 
represented  as  totally  estranged,  not  only  from 
Israel  at  large  (chap,  i.),  but  from  the  priests  as  well 
(chap,  ii.);  Jehovah  being  estranged,  what  then? 

They  must  look  to  the  future  for  relief.     The 


Messianic  Prophecy  153 

Messianic  expectation  was  thereupon  revived  and 
re-expressed  in  more  vivid  form  (chaps,  iii.  and  iv.). 
According  to  chapter  iii.,  16,  personal  com- 
munion with  Jehovah  was  lost,  so  that  they  who 
feared  Jehovah,  instead  of  speaking  with  Him 
or  with  His  prophet,  "spake  one  with  another." 
Still  Jehovah  was  listening  and  heard  it  all,  but 
He  did  not  reply.  The  best  that  could  be  hoped 
for  was  that  the  loyalty  and  devotion  of  the  few 
who  still  feared  Him  would  be  recorded  in  His 
"  book  of  remembrance,"  so  that  when  at  last  the 
hoped-for  messenger  should  come  in  His  name. 
He  would  not  totally  destroy  them  but  would 
"spare  them  as  a  m.an  spareth  his  own  son  that 
serveth  him"  (verse  17).  And  this  expectation, 
for  the  next  three  or  four  centuries,  constituted 
the  sole  hope  for  the  nation.  But  when  would  it 
be  fulfilled?  When  would  Jehovah's  estrangement 
come  to  an  end?  When  would  He  send  His 
messenger,  the  Messiah,  to  renew  and  perpetuate 
the  personal  relationships  which  had  once  existed 
when  He  called  Abraham  His  friend,  and  talked 
with  Moses  face  to  face?  The  silence  of  the  sacred 
oracle  after  the  prophetic  office  came  to  an  end 
thus  caused  a  revival  of  the  Messianic  hope  to 
which  the  captivity  had  given  birth — and  a 
revival  that  lasted  until,  in  view  of  the  wonderful 
works  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  those  who  witnessed 
them  exclaimed  in  glad  surprise,  "  God  hath  visited 
His  people"  (Luke  vii.,  16).  The  days  of  His 
long  estrangement  were  then  over. 


154  Messianic  Prophecy 

In  carrying  back  the  Messianic  expectation  to  a 
much  earlier  date,  say  to  the  time  of  Abraham 
(Gen.  xii.,  1-3),  or  to  the  still  earlier  time  of  Noah 
(Gen.  ix.,  26,  27),  as  many  very  excellent  scholars 
have  done,  two  different  ideas  have  been  mixed 
together — first  the  idea  of  great  glory  and  pros- 
perity to  the  nation,  and  through  that  nation  to 
other  nations,  which  is  all  that  is  clearly  foretold 
in  the  earlier  promises,  that  is,  those  made  to 
Noah  and  Abraham ;  and  the  other  or  second  idea 
that,  though  Jehovah,  on  account  of  their  sins 
would  desert  or  had  deserted  them,  still  in  the 
good  course  of  time,  and  in  view  of  their  future 
repentance,  He  would  come  back  again,  or,  not 
returning  in  person,  would  send  His  servant 
(Isa.  Hi.  13  et  seq.) — His  messenger  (Mai.  iii., 
i),  one  on  whom  His  spirit  should  rest,  one  of  the 
house  and  lineage  of  David — Melek-Messiah, 
Messiah  the  King.  These  two  ideas  of  future 
national  prosperity,  and  of  a  personal  messenger 
from  Jehovah,  though  generally  confused,  should 
be  kept  distinct.  They  are  different  in  kind,  as 
well  as  different  in  time. 

This  latter  idea  or  conception  is  not  disclosed 
in  any  record  prior  to  the  degeneracy  which  began 
with  the  reign  of  Manasseh.  Deuteronomy  xviii., 
15,  contains  nothing  to  the  contrary;  for,  though 
written  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Moses,  and 
based  on  Mosaic  records  and  traditions,  still  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy  in  its  present  form  belongs 
probably  to  about  the  time  of  Manasseh;  and 


Messianic  Prophecy  155 

what  particular  personage,  if  any,  Moses  had  in 
mind  when  originally  he  wrote  this  prophecy, 
is  nowhere  directly  revealed,  though  Peter  finds 
a  fulfillment  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  (Acts  iii.,  22). 
The  prophet  Samuel  fulfills  its  requirements. 

Some  of  our  best  Biblical  scholars  tell  us  that, 
according  to  the  context,  Moses  had  no  particular 
person  in  mind,  but  that  in  this  specific  passage,  he 
predicted  the  continuity  in  Israel  of  the  prophetic 
office  which  he  had  established — that  is  to  say, 
after  his  own  death,  Jehovah  would  raise  up  from 
the  ranks  of  the  people  some  other  prophet  who 
would  continue  the  work  which  he,  when  he  closed 
his  life  on  Mount  Nebo,  was  compelled  to  leave 
unfinished.  Nor  does  our  Saviour's  remark 
(John  viii.,  56)  contain  anything  to  the  contrary; 
for,  though  Abraham  doubtless  foresaw  the  *'day" 
or  time  or  period  of  the  Son  of  man,  it  is  not  said 
nor  even  intimated  that  he  foresaw  Him  as  a 
personality.  Nor  yet  can  we  safely  argue  that 
the  Psalms  contain  anything  to  the  contrary,  for 
the  dates  and  authors  of  those  which  precede  the 
captivity  are  matters  of  tradition  and  inference. 
The  titles  to  the  Psalms  are  no  part  of  the  inspired 
record,  and  represent  at  best  only  an  ancient 
tradition.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  imdoubtedly 
true  that  when  Jesus  of  Nazareth  completed  His 
earthly  ministry,  the  earlier  promises  made  to 
Abraham  and  to  Noah,  of  divine  blessings  to  be 
conferred  on  their  posterity,  received  their  com- 
plete fulfillment,  but  a  fulfillment  which,  so  far 


156  Messianic  Prophecy 

as  the  record  goes,  was  not  dreamed  of  when  those 
promises  were  made.  So  also  were  fulfilled  the 
later  predictions  which,  revealed  and  received 
under  the  stress  of  direful  calamity  and  misfortime, 
pointed  directly  to  Him  as  a  person.  All  previous 
history  and  prediction  centered  and  merged  in 
Him;  all  subsequent  history  grows  out  of  what  He 
was,  what  He  said,  and  what  He  did  (Col.  i., 
15-18). 

The  expectation  of  "a  good  time  coming" 
which  is  still  vocalized  in  the  songs  of  to-day,  and 
which  finds  its  highest  expression  in  the  antici- 
pated Millennium,  is  as  old  as  Abraham  and  prob- 
ably much  older;  the  expectation  of  a  personal 
Messiah  was  bom  many  centuries  later,  and  had 
its  origin  with  and  in  the  same  experiences  that 
gave  conscious  birth  to  a  belief  in  a  future  state 
and  a  final  resurrection.  The  revelation  came 
when  human  exigency  called  for  it.  "Man's 
extremity  is  God's  opportunity." 


PROTESTANTISM 

It  is  a  striking  characteristic  of  our  Western 
civilization  that  it  never  stands  still.  It  is  always 
in  motion,  and  always  moves  with  a  certain  amount 
of  intelligence — doing  or  trying  to  do  something 
new,  or  something  old  in  a  new  way;  continually 
developing  angular  or  tangential  tendencies  of 
thought,  speech,  or  action  in  new  directions  or 
toward  new  results;  making  new  or  remaking 
old  experiments;  retesting  old  ideas,  old  plans,  old 
theories,  and  old  systems,  not  necessarily  because 
they  are  old,  but  because  for  some  reason,  real  or 
imaginary,  they  do  not  happen  to  suit,  or  sometimes 
from  a  spirit  of  mere  inquisitiveness — much  as  the 
boy  did  who  burst  in  the  head  of  his  drum  just 
to  see  where  the  noise  came  from.  Looking  back 
we  can  see  that  it  has,  like  the  boy,  sometimes 
acted  foolishly.  Occasionally  it  has  kindled  a 
fire  in  which  it  got  its  fingers  burnt;  but  as  a 
general  rule  its  aims  and  purposes  have  been  good, 
and  seldom  wholly  bad,  though  sometimes  tinged 
strongly   with   selfishness. 

And  this  spirit,  or,  rather,  determination  to 
reinvestigate  everything,  retest  everything,  and, 
if  need  be,  to  revise  everything,  extends  even  to 

157 


158  Protestantism 


matters  of  religion.  Every  truth,  religious  or 
otherwise,  must  square  up  and  fit  in  with  every 
contiguous  or  allied  truth,  and  must  also  fit  in  with 
the  now  existing  requirements  of  humanity;  if 
it  does  not,  something  is  wrong  somewhere.  Mis- 
fits are  either  thrown  away  or  held  for  further 
revision  when  an  increase  of  knowledge  may  make 
the  work  easier. 

These  facts  become  the  more  impressive  when 
compared  by  contrast  with  the  corresponding 
facts  in  the  civilizations  of  the  remote  East,  say 
of  China  and  native  India,  in  neither  of  which, 
except  as  foreign  influences  have  dominated,  has 
there  been  any  material  change  for  a  thousand 
or  more  years.  The  more  prominent  civilizations 
of  Asia,  uninfluenced  from  outside,  are  as  nearly 
stationar}^  as  it  is  possible  for  them  to  be.  What- 
ever is  good  therein  is  enjoyed;  whatever  is  bad 
is  accepted  as  if  it  were  good,  and  endured  without 
murmur  or  protest.  And  this  is  as  true  of  their 
religions — the  religions  of  Brahm,  Buddh,  and 
Mohammed — as  the  reverse  is  true  of  ours.  While 
these  Eastern  religions  differ  somewhat  in  different 
countries,  the  differences  are  as  stable  as  the  like- 
nesses. 

It  is  no  part  of  my  present  purpose  to  inquire 
why  these  things  are  so.  I  use  them  only  as  a 
starting-point. 

While  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  our  dominant 
systems  of  religion,  generally  known  as  Roman 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  have  been  largely  instru- 


Protestantism  159 


mental  in  making  our  civilization,  and  in  making 
it  what  it  is,  and  while  it  is  equally  true  that  the 
basic  principles  of  our  religious  faith  are  not  subject 
to  change  by  any  human  agency,  it  is  also  a  fact 
that  great  changes  have  been  made  in  respect 
of  our  understanding  or  interpretation  of  these 
principles,  the  forms  in  which  they  are  stated,  the 
relative  rank  or  importance  accorded  to  them,  the 
ways  in  which  they  have  been  embodied  in  church 
and  other  organizations,  and  applied  century  after 
century  to  the  ever-changing  necessities,  wants, 
demands,  or  even  whims  of  the  very  civilization 
which  they  were  helping  to  make.  The  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  for  example,  which  prides  itself 
on  its  stability,  the  permanency  of  its  faith  and 
practice,  and  its  universality  as  well,  is  and  always 
has  been  undergoing  a  process  of  change,  not,  it  is 
true,  by  formally  repealing  or  abrogating  any 
matter  of  obligation,  belief,  or  dogma  once  decreed, 
but  rather  by  silently  modifying  or  quietly  drop- 
ping into  ''innocuous  desuetude"  such  elements  of 
belief  or  practice  as  have  been  foimd  by  experience 
to  be  unsuited  to  its  purposes  or  incapable  of 
enforcement;  and  also  by  adding  new  dogmas,  or 
new  interpretations,  or  new  rules  of  practice  as 
the  exigencies  of  the  times  might  require.  The 
careful  student  of  history  scarcely  needs  to  be  told 
that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  of  to-day  is 
quite  different  from  that  of  even  two  or  three 
centuries  ago ;  and  any  observant  traveler  can  see 
the  very  considerable  dissimilarity  which  exists 


i6o  Protestantism 


between  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  of  America 
and  that  of  Central  and  Southern  Europe.  That 
church  is  a  marked  victim  to  change,  whatever  its 
votaries  may  argue  to  the  contrary.  Generally 
it  is  changing  for  the  better,  and  in  some  directions 
is  changing  quite  as  rapidly  as  the  safety  of  its 
own  organization  will  permit. 

The  same  is  true  of  Protestantism  and  of  all  its 
branches,  word  for  word.  People  made  up  as  we 
are  can  no  more  help  changing  their  systems  of 
religious  belief  than  they  can  help  changing  the 
cut  or  style  of  their  clothes.  When  a  nation  or  a 
people  stop  thinking,  they  stop  changing — and 
not  till  then. 

My  present  purpose  is  more  particularly  to  note 
some  of  the  more  prominent  tendencies  now- 
observable  in  the  Protestant  section  of  the  Church 
Universal,  indicatory  of  present  or  possible  coming 
changes,  such  as  are  affecting  or  are  liable  to  affect 
its  manner  of  life — premising,  however,  that  any 
such  well- developed  tendency  is  fairly  good  proof 
of  some  kind  or  degree  of  dissatisfaction  with 
what  already  is,  and  a  hope  or  expectation  that 
something  better  can  be  found. 

I.  Our  Western  civilization  is  apparently  in 
serious  doubt  as  to  the  suitableness  or  efficiency 
(or  both)  of  Protestantism  as  now  organized  and 
administered,  for  suppressing  the  saloon  and  the 
brothel,  for  relieving  the  unfortunate  and  reforming 
the  criminal. 

The  organization  and  work  of  the  Salvation 


Protestantism  i6i 


Army,  the  American  Volunteers,  and  our  numerous 
voluntary  relief  associations  and  rescue-homes, 
nearly  if  not  all  of  which  are  outside  of  church 
control,  are  a  conclusive  expression  of  this  doubt. 
Philanthropists  who  inaugurate  a  new  and  special 
agency  for  doing  reformatory  work,  indicate 
thereby  a  lack  of  faith  in  the  already  existing 
agencies  to  which  such  work  might  properly  belong. 
Nor  does  it  help  the  matter  at  all  that  many  of 
the  devout  adherents  of  the  Protestant  faith  may 
be  cooperating  largely,  and  sometimes  liberally, 
in  aid  of  these  outside  agencies,  for  it  indicates 
a  like  lack  of  faith  or  confidence  on  the  part  of 
Protestants  themselves.  Loss  of  faith  in  one 
existing  institution  cannot  be  shown  more  sig- 
nificantly than  by  the  organization  of  another. 
When  a  living  stream  finds  for  itself  a  new  channel, 
the  conclusion  is  obvious  that  the  old  channel  is 
dammed  up,  or  is  inadequate,  or  for  some  other 
reason  is  not  satisfactory.  The  currents  of  reform 
are,  and  for  some  time  have  been,  making  new 
channels  for  the  outflow  and  onflow  of  the  streams 
of  work,  influence,  and  power  which  are  to  aid 
in  the  cleansing  of  humanity. 

Another  indication  of  the  same  fact  lies  in  the 
clearly  apparent  and  gradually  increasing  ten- 
dency to  invoke  the  aid  of  legislation  in  the  carrying 
on  of  that  reformatory  work  which  involves  the 
promotion  of  public  morals.  Religious  forces  are 
properly  regarded  as  especially  appropriate  and 
efficient  in  the  field  of  moral  reform;  and  when 


l62  Protestantism 


these  forces  become  so  far  reduced  in  amount,  or 
so  ineffective  in  results,  that  religious  men  and 
women  turn  in  apparent  alarm,  as  they  are  now 
doing,  to  invoke  political  aid,  such  action  on  their 
part  is  strongly  confirmative  of  the  conclusion 
that  religion  is  on  the  decline.  Legislation  is  an 
excellent  adjunct  in  restraining  or  temporarily 
suppressing  the  comparatively  small  portion  of 
our  population  which  is  really  vicious;  but  the 
great  majority  of  our  saloon-keepers,  and  many  of 
their  patrons  as  well,  are  not  vicious.  For  the 
purpose  of  controlling  the  non-vicions  class,  if 
moral  agencies  are  weak,  legislation  is  weaker  still. 
If  the  salt  of  good  morals  has  lost  its  savor,  society 
cannot  be  saved,  nor  can  men,  otherwise  inclined, 
be  led  into  the  ways  of  righteous  living  by  an  act 
of  Assembly,  nor  by  a  hundred  such  acts. 

2.  I  feel  at  least  reasonably  safe  in  formulating 
the  conclusion  qmte  generally  prevalent  that 
Protestantism  is  steadily  losing  (if  it  has  not 
already  lost)  its  hold  on  that  very  numerous  class 
who  live  by  the  fruits  of  their  own  manual  labor, 
the  class  of  employees  including  mechanics  and 
laborers  generally,  and  small  tradesmen  or  shop- 
keepers. 

As  to  these  people,  it  begins  to  look  very  much 
as  if  Protestantism  were  a  failure.  Such  people 
are  chiefly  congregated  in  our  mining,  lumbering, 
and  maniifacturing  districts,  and  in  our  cities. 
As  to  the  miners,  lumbermen,  and  factory  hands, 
they  are  left  for  the  most  part  to  take  care  of 


Protestantism  163 


themselves.  Such  efforts  as  are  made  in  their 
behalf  are  usually  feeble  or  spasmodic,  and  merely 
amoimt  to  enough  to  satisfy  temporarily  the 
occasional  twinges  of  an  outraged  conscience.  In 
the  cities,  our  Protestant  churches  have  practically 
become  religious  club-houses  for  the  especial,  if  not 
exclusive,  use  of  members  and  their  families.  Our 
Christian  Endeavor  and  other  kindred  organiza- 
tions expend  their  best  efforts  in  the  cultivation 
of  individual  piety  in  their  own  membership. 
Beyond  what  is  meet,  they  are  becoming  mutual- 
admiration  societies.  People  of  the  classes  above 
referred  to,  usually  included  in  the  comprehensive 
phrases,  "the  common  people"  and  ''the  lower 
classes,"  are  found  in  oiu*  city  Protestant  churches 
in  exceedingly  small  and  gradually  lessening  num- 
bers, and  apparently  cannot  be  induced  to  come 
to  them.  And  the  amount  of  religion  they  have  at 
home  is  not  visibly  on  the  increase. 

This  particular  evil  has  long  been  recognized, 
and  repeated  efforts  have  been  made  to  ''bring 
them  in."  Methodism  in  its  origin  had  this  for 
one  of  its  aims — to  reach  and  save  the  common 
people — and  for  a  hundred  years  or  so  it  was  run 
on  those  lines,  and  with  marvelous  success.  But 
for  the  last  half-century,  it  has  been  changing  by  a 
slow  process  of  degeneracy  into  a  close  assimilation 
to  the  other  branches  of  Protestantism,  until  now, 
in  respect  of  the  feature  or  element  here  in  question, 
the  difference  is  small.  It  has  become  much  like 
unto   the   rest    of   us.     The    Moody   movement 


1 64  Protestantism 


involved  also  an  effort  to  reach  the  churchless 
masses.  For  a  time  they  came  to  Moody's 
preaching  in  immense  crowds — much  as,  when 
John  the  Baptist  began  his  wonderful  work,  there 
''went  out  unto  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judaea, 
and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan"  (Matt. 
iii.,  5).  But  in  his  later  years  Moody  allowed 
himself  to  be  persuaded  to  walk  along  the  well- 
beaten  trails  of  orthodox  Protestantism,  so  that 
his  early  work,  Hke  that  of  the  Wesleys,  though 
some  of  its  fruits  remain,  is  now  scarcely  more  than 
a  memory,  or  a  part  of  the  history  of  unrealized 
expectations.  Protestantism  has  changed  by 
degeneracy  until  ''the  common  people"  and  "the 
lower  classes"  care  nothing  for  it,  and  but  very 
little  for  the  Gospel  it  professes  to  teach.  The 
exceptions  are  barely  enough  in  number  to  prove 
the  rule.  The  causes  of  the  change  need  not  be 
enumerated;  they  will  readily  be  seen  by  those 
who  really  wish  to  find  them. 

Mormonism  is  in  part  a  substantial  protest 
against  the  indifference  which  Protestantism  has 
shown  toward  the  common  or  working  people, 
especially  during  the  last  half -century ;  for,  con- 
trary to  the  general  impression,  the  real  strength 
of  Mormonism  lies,  not  in  its  religion,  but  in  the 
fact  that  it  is  largely  a  social  and  industrial  organi- 
zation, and  as  completely  so,  though  in  a  some- 
what different  way,  as  were  the  Economites  in 
Pennsylvania  in  the  days  of  their  numerical  and 
financial  prosperity.     Mormonism,  in  substance, 


Protestantism  165 


embraces  not  only  a  religious  union,  but  a  social 
union,  a  labor  union,  and  a  commercial  union  as 
well.  The  Mormon  Church  sees  to  it  that  every 
adult  member  able  to  work  is  provided  with  a 
means  of  livelihood,  and  that  his  or  her  spiritual 
interests  are  looked  after  also.  Those  not  able 
to  work  are  systematically  provided  for.  It  is 
doubtful  if  labor  is  anywhere  so  well-organized 
as  by  that  despotic  church,  and  every  producer 
is  provided  with  a  market.  Their  polygamous 
system  enables  them  to  take  care  of  the  surplus 
female  population  for  whom  remunerative  em- 
ployment cannot  otherwise  be  found.  All  are 
thus  provided  for,  and,  so  far  as  surface  indications 
show,  are  reasonably  happy  in  the  present  world 
and  well-contented  as  regards  their  prospects  in 
the  next.  Possibly  Protestantism  might  learn 
something  by  knowing  Mormonism  better. 

3.  The  failure  of  Protestantism  to  maintain 
(except  theoretically)  the  high  standard  of  spirit- 
uality which  the  Reformers  originally  put  into 
it — God  dwelling  in  man  and  man  in  Him,  whereby 
man  grows  into  a  oneness  with  Him — even  if  not 
otherwise  apparent,  would  seem  to  be  proved  by 
the  sudden  rise  and  rapid  growth  of  the  Christian 
Science  sect,  one  chief  article  of  whose  creed  is  the 
identity  of  God  with  that  which  in  man  is  good. 
This  is  a  step,  and  a  long  step,  in  the  direction  of 
that  oneness  with  Him  which  is  the  final  aim  and 
result  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ  as  John  understood 
and    explained   it.     I   think   that   the   Christian 


1 66  Protestantism 


Science  conception  of  this  article  of  their  faith  is 
somewhat  crude  and  decidedly  hazy,  but  if 
apprehended  and  lived  by  Christian  Scientists 
in  form  and  substance  as  John  sets  it  forth  in  his 
Gospel,  it  may  ultimately  become  an  arrow  which 
will  reach  one  of  the  defective  joints  of  the  Protes- 
tant armor  (I.  Kings  xxii.,  34);  and  if  it  does, 
the  Protestant  Church  will  be  likely  to  suffer  for 
its  falling  away  from  the  high  standard  of  the 
primitive  faith. 

I  do  not  wish  to  magnify  Christian  Science,  but 
still  I  cannot  help  regarding  it  as  a  dangerous 
protest  against  our  Protestant  neglect  of  that 
particular  phase  of  Christianity  which  is  developed 
in  John's  Gospel.  For  while  it  is  largely  a  system 
of  highly  seductive  error,  it  still  embraces  a 
considerable  percentage  of  very  plausible  truth. 
Its  theory  of  visible  nature  substantially  conforms 
to  the  Buddhist  doctrine  of  illusion — that  all 
visible  things  are  "Maya,"  illusion.  Its  good  in 
man  is  approximately  the  ''karma"  theory  or 
doctrine  of  Buddhism,  though  considerably 
tinctured  with  Christian  sentiment.  By  an  un- 
scholarly  but  colorable  misreading  of  the  Bible, 
it  has  evolved  and  adopted  a  perverted  conception 
of  the  divine  Being.  To  the  conglomerate  thus 
formed,  it  has  added  a  semi-realistic,  but  not 
wholly  erroneous,  interpretation  of  the  fourth 
Gospel.  To  this  also  it  has  added  a  mystical 
theory  of  "health  and  disease,"  the  greater  part 
of  which  it  borrowed  from  the   "  faith-curers, " 


Protestantism  167 

but  which  probably  contains  more  truth  than  we 
Protestants  are  willing  to  admit  (though  sooner 
or  later  we  shall  have  to) ;  and  which,  still  further, 
as  it  appeals  violently  to  the  imagination  and  to 
our  natural  love  of  the  marvellous,  is  an  element  of 
power,  especially  among  the  credulous  and  weak 
thinkers — classes,  by  the  way,  that  include  the 
large  majority  of  mankind.  By  this  unification  of 
God  and  Good,  Christian  Science  has  made 
especially  prominent  in  the  spiritual  life  of  its 
devout  adherents  an  element  of  faith — oneness 
with  God — which  the  Protestant  churches  have 
practically  (though  not  theoretically)  relegated 
from  a  primary  to  a  subordinate  place  in  their 
compendiuni  of  religious  truth.  In  this  respect 
Protestantism  has  made  a  serious  mistake — 
a  change  for  the  worse — which,  if  not  corrected, 
is  liable  sooner  or  later  to  prove  fatal. 

4.  Among  the  intellectual  and  moral  forces 
that  are  now  guiding  the  development  of  our 
civilization,  there  appears  to  be  a  growing  doubt 
as  to  whether  the  Protestant  Church  occupies  an 
impregnable  position  in  holding  that  the  final 
authority  in  all  matters  of  duty  and  obligation 
is  an  infallible  Bible  and  nothing  else. 

The  Roman  CathoHc  holds  to  an  infallible 
Bible  as,  and  only  as,  interpreted  and  supplement- 
ed by  an  infallible  church  or  by  an  infallible  Pope 
when  speaking  ex  cathedra  in  matters  of  faith  or 
morals. 

Which  is  correct?     Or  is  either  correct? 


1 68  Protestantism 


I  do  not  propose  just  now  to  discuss  these 
questions,  or  either  of  them,  but  only  to  call 
attention  to  certain  phases  of  the  Protestant  side 
of  the  case. 

(i)  For  the  most  part,  Protestantism  has 
been  forced  to  abandon  its  old  theory  of  verbal 
inspiration,  for  the  facts  will  not  sustain  it.  In 
lieu  thereof,  it  adopted  and  theoretically  at  least 
still  holds  to  a  theory  of  "plenary"  inspiration,  of 
which  more  presently. 

At  the  same  time,  the  old  theory  of  verbal 
inspiration  is  still  stoutly  maintained  by  many. 
Moody  adopted  and  clung  to  it  to  the  last.  The 
Mormon  Church  believes  and  teaches  it.  Practi- 
cally our  Second  Adventists  and  premillenarians 
also  hold  to  it,  at  least  so  far  as  relates  to  matters 
of  eschatology.  And  many  individual  believers 
of  profound  piety  refuse  to  give  it  up;  but  other- 
wise, the  general  consensus  of  scholarly  opinion 
among  our  best  Biblical  critics  is  to  the  effect 
above  stated. 

(2)  There  is,  however,  a  section  of  orthodox 
Protestantism  of  high  learning  and  scholarship, 
which,  on  account  of  numerous  well-established 
errors  in  the  oldest  and  best  of  the  known  texts, 
have  adopted  the  theory  of  the  infallibility  or 
"inerrancy  of  the  original  manuscripts" — that 
is  to  say,  even  if  the  present  Biblical  text  is  not 
infallible,  the  original  manuscripts  were.  But 
as  the  original  manuscripts  cannot  be  referrred  to 
for  the  purpose  of  verification,   the  theory  has 


Protestantism  169 


found  but  a  limited  acceptance;  and  I  mention  it 
only  as  illustrative  of  how  Protestantism  is  rest- 
lessly moving  in  certain  quarters,  with  uneasy 
and  somewhat  uncertain  steps,  in  an  effort  to 
correct  errors  of  which  it  is  now  becoming  un- 
pleasantly  conscious. 

(3)  "Plenary"  inspiration  is  differently  de- 
fined by  different  Biblical  scholars.  In  fact,  it  is 
one  of  those  phrases  which,  on  account  of  the 
tmcertainty  of  its  meaning,  is  used  to  cover  a 
considerable  divergence  of  belief.  Generally  it  is 
imderstood  to  include  the  infallibility  of  the  record 
in  respect  of  the  particular  fact,  thought,  or  truth 
expressed,  but  not  of  the  particular  form  of 
statement  employed  in  the  expression  of  it. 

This  theory  is  still  maintained,  nominally  at 
least,  by  a  considerable  majority  of  those  who 
adhere  to  the  Protestant  faith. 

(4)  But  this  theory  is  vigorously  assailed 
as  untenable,  and  largely  for  the  same  reasons 
which  led  to  the  general  abandonment  of  the 
"verbal"  theory.  In  Heu  of  it,  there  is  asserted 
the  inspiration  and  infallibility  of  the  Biblical 
record  in  respect  of  all  matters  of  faith  and  morals, 
including  therein  aH  matters  of  divine  revelation 
both  as  to  this  world  and  the  next ;  all  matters  of 
moral  obligation  on  the  part  of  man  to  or  toward 
his  Maker  and  his  fellow-man — telling  him  how  to 
live  and  how  to  die  and  how  to  live  hereafter — and 
also  including  a  history  of  the  dealings  of  divine 
Providence  with  certain  individual  men,  and  with 


170  Protestantism 


certain  portions  or  sections  of  humanity.  Under 
this  theory  history  as  history  and  science  as  science 
in  the  Biblical  record  are  not  regarded  as  inspired, 
nor  the  record  itself  as  infallible;  though  subject 
to  the  unavoidable  errors  which  even  the  best  and 
best-informed  men  will  make,  the  history  is  to  be 
taken  as  correct  and  the  science  as  the  best  that 
the  writers  could  have  known.  ^ 

I  have  briefly  stated  these  general  theories  in 
the  order  of  their  development,  merely  to  illustrate 
the  fact  that  even  our  Protestant  faith  is  involved 
in  the  universal  and  ever-continuing  movement  of 
our  Western  civilization,  is  changing  with  it  and 
being  changed  by  it.  Its  theories  or  postulates 
are  undergoing  continual  re-examination  and  re- 
vision, not  usually  in  an  unfriendly  spirit,  but 
generally  for  the  purpose  of  getting  at  the  truth; 
for  the  old  proverb,  Magna  est  Veritas  et  prcevalebit, 

^  Two  facts,  casually  picked  up,  may  illustrate  the  difficulty 
experienced  by  our  Biblical  scholars  in  dealing  with  the  subject 
of  inspiration: 

1.  The  learned  Lord  Bishop  of  Ripon,  in  his  valuable  Intro- 
duction to  "The  Temple  Bible,"  freely  admits  his  inability  to 
state  in  words  what  he  understands  inspiration  to  mean.  Thus 
(p.  84)  he  says: 

"I  confess  that  I  know  no  satisfactory  definition  either  of 
Inspiration  or  Revelation.  I  have  looked  through  many  treatises ; 
I  have  met  with  many  attempted  definitions;  but  none  are  really 
adequate." 

2.  Dr.  De  Witt,  in  a  most  excellent  manual  entitled  What  is 
Inspiration?  (Randolph,  1893)  formulates  a  definition  (pp.  163- 
164)  two  hundred  words  in  length.  Such  a  definition  requires  a 
commentary  for  its  comprehension;  and  that  is  really  what  his 
book  is. 


Protestantism  171 


is  not  a  mere  ''glittering  generality,"  but  a 
basic  fact  in  the  divine  administration  of  the 
universe. 

While  Protestantism  is  the  latest  and,  up  to  the 
present  time,  represents  probably  the  best  evolu- 
tion of  Christianity,  there  is  still  room  within  its 
precincts  for  a  radical  reformation,  for  it  does  not 
embody  in  any  practical  sense  the  most  perfect 
attainable  results. 

In  the  Greek  and  Roman  Catholic  churches,  the 
Church  of  England,  and  its  off-shoot  the  Protes- 
tant-Episcopal Church  of  America,  the  dominant 
element  of  religion  is  a  ritual.  In  the  Protestant 
and  Reformed  churches  generally,  it  is  a  creed. 
In  the  church  of  the  future,  it  will  be  righteousness, 
and  a  kind  and  degree  of  righteousness  (Rom.  i., 
17,  18;  iii.,  21;  ix.,  30;  X.,  6;  Phil,  iii.,  9,  etc.) 
which  will  end  our  present  wranglings  about 
rituals  and  creeds,  and  in  lieu  thereof  will  give 
dominance  to: 

''Whatsoever  things  are  true, 

"Whatsoever  things  are  honorable, 

"Whatsoever  things  are  just, 

"Whatsoever  things  are  pure, 

"Whatsoever  things  are  lovely, 

"Whatsoever  things  are  of  good  report"  (Phil, 
iv.,  8). 

A  reHgion  whose  dominant  feature  is  righteous- 
ness is  what  the  world  needs  just  now. 

Protestantism  may  live  if  it  corrects  its  own 
errors  and  defects;  otherwise  our  civilization  will 


172  Protestantism 


reject  it  and  throw  it  away.  But  if  it  dies,  as  it 
yet  may,  we  can  rest  assured  that  it  will  be  succeed- 
ed by  something  truer — and  therefore  something 
better. 


LOST  BELIEFS 

There  are  a  number  of  things  taught  in  the 
Scriptures  which  we  of  the  Protestant  faith  ig- 
nore and  practically  reject.  Being  authoritatively 
taught  once,  they  were  either  believed  or  taught 
in  order  that  they  might  be  believed,  and  hence  for 
convenience  I  term  them  ''Lost  Beliefs." 

I.  In  Hebrews  i.,  14,  it  is  clearly  indicated  that 
one  of  the  normal,  ordinary  duties  of  angelic  beings 
is  to  help  those  of  us  who  are  trying  to  follow  along 
the  way  that  leads  to  eternal  life ;  and  the  interroga- 
tory form  of  the  passage  distinctly  implies  that 
such  was  then  the  belief  of  the  writer  and  of  those 
to  or  for  whom  he  wrote.  It  was  so  well  under- 
stood that  there  was  no  doubt  about  it.  Since 
they  all  beHeved  it,  the  writer  had  only  to  remind 
them  of  the  fact. 

The  agency  of  spirits,  or  spiritual  agency  in  the 
promotion  of  righteousness  among  men,  is,  in  our 
modem  religious  teaching,  confined  to  the  office 
and  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Practically  our 
faith  is  centered  on  this  as  the  only  power  outside 
ourselves  that  "makes  for  righteousness";  so 
that  when  we  invoke  divine  aid  in  behalf  of  our 
infirmities  and  shortcomings,  we  rarely,  if  ever, 
think  of  any  other  aid  than  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

173 


174  Lost  Beliefs 


But  for  thus  limiting  our  conceptions  we  have  no 
Biblical  authority.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
passage  above  cited,  we  are  plainly  told,  not  as  a 
new  revelation,  but  as  something  then  generally 
taught  and  believed  by  the  Christian  converts 
from  Judaism,  that  angelic  beings — all  of  them — 
have  it  as  their  proper  and  ordinary  work,  to  aid 
those  of  us  who  are  earnestly  striving  for  better 
lives  here  and  for  immortal  lives  hereafter. 

And  this  being  true,  why  should  it  not  still  be  so 
taught  and  believed?  And  why  may  we  not  in 
prayer  reasonably  and  properly  invoke  angelic 
aid  as  well  as  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  Do  you 
say  that  it  is  not  necessary,  and  that  the  Spirit  can 
give  us  all  the  aid  we  need?  Doubtess  it  can,  but, 
according  to  Scripture,  it  is  otherwise  appointed. 
If  it  be  true  that,  in  the  divine  plan,  vSuch  work, 
or  any  part  of  it,  is  assigned  to  angelic  beings,  is  it 
for  us  to  refuse  to  pray  for  such  needed  aid  or 
service  as  is  divinely  appointed  to  be  rendered  by 
or  through  them? 

It  may  be  noted  that  the  direct  worshiping 
of  angels  forbidden  by  St.  Paul  (Col.  ii.,  i8)  is  a 
very  different  thing  and  has  no  relevancy  to  the 
subject  now  in  hand. 

While  we  have  no  specific  teachings  on  the  sub- 
ject, we  have  a  number  of  illustrative  examples  in 
the  New  Testament  as  to  what  kind  of  aid  or  ser- 
vice by  angels  has  been  rendered  to  humanity  in 
the  past,  the  particular  manner  being  usually, 
and  perhaps  always,  that  of  a  dream.     But  before 


Lost  Beliefs  175 


noting  a  few  such  examples,  let  me  add  that,  so 
far  as  we  know,  there  is  nothing  miraculous  in  a 
dream ;  nor  is  there  any  case  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament  of  angelic  service  to  humanity  (outside 
of  its  agency  in  the  giving  of  revelation),  the  dupli- 
cation of  which  to  a  devout  follower  of  the  Master, 
and  on  a  befitting  occasion,  should  even  now  be 
regarded  as  in  the  nature  of  a  miracle.  It  might  be 
termed  a  "special  providence,"  but  a  special 
providence  is  not  necessarily  nor  always  a  miracle. 
The  two  should  be  carefully  distinguished. 

Outside  the  prophetical  books,  the  Bible  gives  us 
a  few  sketches  of  inspired  dreams;  one  in  Genesis 
XV.,  12-17,  by  which  the  futiu-e  of  his  descendants 
for  several  centuries  was  made  known  to  Abraham  ; 
one  in  Job.  iv.,  12-17,  which  for  combined  beauty 
and  sublimity  is  unexcelled  in  our  literature; 
and  a  third  in  Acts  x.,  9-16,  which,  in  connection 
with  what  immediately  followed,  first  removed  the 
stigma  of  religious  uncleanness  from  the  non- 
Jewish  nations  of  the  earth — quorum  pars  sumus. 

For  a  few  illustrations  of  angelic  service  to  men 
in  the  flesh,  easy  reference  may  be  made  to: 

Matt,  i.,  20;  ii.,  12,  13,  19,  22. 

Luke  i.,  II,  28;  ii.,  9;  xvi.,  22. 

Acts  v.,  19;  vii.,  30;  viii.,  26;  x.,  3;  xii.,  7,  23; 
xxvii.,  23. 

Human  experience  plainly  shows  that  dreams  of 
warning,  dreams  of  a  possible  future,  dreams  of 
guidance  or  instruction,  dreams  of  reproach, 
dreams  of  praise,  dreams  that  seem  to  be  prompted 


176  Lost  Beliefs 


by  some  extramundane  agency,  are  not  wholly 
unknown  among  even  as  unsuperstitious  and 
incredulous  a  people  as  ourselves.  Generally 
we  refuse  to  heed  them,  or  dismiss  them  with  a 
laugh,  and  perhaps  to  our  own  serious  loss.  But 
how  may  we  know  an  angel-inspired  dream  from 
any  other?  Of  course,  to  do  so  would  require 
a  moral  or  religious  apprehension  which,  for  want 
of  cultivation,  very  few  of  us  possess.  But  how 
do  we  learn  to  distinguish  a  sincere  conviction 
from  a  deceptive  impulse?  the  promise  of  an  honest 
man  from  the  pledge  of  a  sleek  scoundrel?  a  house 
of  purity  from  a  whitewashed  sepulcher?  The 
prophet  Samuel,  in  his  youth  and  inexperience, 
failed  to  distinguish  the  call  of  Jehovah  from  the 
voice  of  Eli,  and  it  took  him  some  time  to  learn 
the  difference  between  them  (I.  Sam.  iii.). 
This  difficulty  is  by  no  means  a  new  one.  It 
once  existed  in  connection  with  prophecy  (Deut. 
xviii.,  21,  22),  but  it  was  not  insuperable.  I  think 
it  safe  to  say  that  he  who  sincerely  and  devoutly 
wishes  to  learn  the  things  divinely  made  known  to 
him  during  "the  visions  of  the  night"  may  learn 
to  distinguish  the  genuine  from  the  spurious  much 
sooner  and  more  surely  than  he  can  learn  to 
separate  correctly  the  men  of  his  community  into 
honest  and  dishonest.  "By  their  fruits  ye  shall 
know  them"  is  probably  as  true  of  dreams  as  of 
men. 

A  belief  in  angels  as  agents  in  and  for  the  service 
oi  the  devout  followers  of  the  Master  is  one  of  the 


Lost  Beliefs  177 


Lost  Beliefs  of  Christianity,  and  in  my  way  of 
thinking  Christianity  is  the  poorer  for  the  loss. 

2.  Another  Lost  Belief  is  referred  to  by  St. 
Paul  in  I.  Corinthians  xv.,  29 — baptism  for  the 
dead. 

The  language  employed  and  the  form  of  ex- 
pression clearly  indicate  that  there  was  then  an 
established  usage  in  the  church  at  Corinth  which 
was  generally  known  by  that  term.  What  did  it 
mean? 

It  will  be  noted  that  there  is  no  ambiguity  in  the 
language  used.  The  phrase  ''baptized  for  the 
dead,"  or,  as  the  original  really  means  (and  ought 
to  be  translated),  ''in  behalf  of  the  dead, "  must  in 
the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary  be  con- 
strued as  meaning  what  it  clearly  expresses — that, 
in  the  usage  referred  to,  living  persons  were 
baptized  for,  or  in  behalf  of,  some  other  persons 
who  were  dead,  and  that  such  baptism  of  the  for- 
mer was  believed  to  intue  in  some  way  to  the 
benefit  of  the  latter.  Such  a  belief  implies  a  very 
near  relationship  between  the  living  and  the  dead, 
and  suggests  that  possibly  (as  in  the  religious 
cultus  of  China)  they  are  not  very  far  apart. 

Many  commentators  and  critics,  without  au- 
thority and  contrary  to  authority,  seek  to  dis- 
tort the  meaning  of  the  language  here  employed 
by  Paul  so  as  to  make  it  mean  something  else. 
With  such  it  is  useless  to  argue.  We  might  as  well 
discuss  the  meaning  of  the  ten  commandments. 
But  the  more  orthodox  critics  try  to  make  it 


178  Lost  Beliefs 


appear  that  in  the  passage  cited  Paul  neither 
approves  nor  disapproves  the  usage  in  question. 

Critics  who  so  argue  have  not  yet  got  acquain- 
ted with  Paul.  He  was  not  a  man  of  that  kind. 
There  were  foiu*  things  which,  as  his  writings 
plainly  show,  he  especially  abominated:  Gentile 
impurity,  Jewish  legalism,  human  hypocrisy,  and 
heathen  superstition.  Either  this  usage  was 
based  on  revealed  truth,  or  else  it  rested  on  a 
heathenish  superstition.  If  it  had  been  the  latter 
we  may  be  reasonably  sure  that  Paul  would  have 
let  it  pass  by  without  even  a  word  of  disapproval. 
He  was  writing  to  a  church  of  his  own  planting, 
and  a  church  over  which  he  still  exercised  apostolic 
authority  (I.  Cor.  v.,  13;  xi.,  34b).  If  we  can 
presume  anything  on  the  subject,  we  must  pre- 
sume that  its  usages  and  practices  either  were 
established  by  him  or  were  based  on  his  teachings. 
Repeatedly  in  his  epistles  he  condemns  innovations 
introduced  by  others.  No  error  of  practice  or 
belief  seems  ever  to  have  escaped  him.  In  the 
passage  cited,  he  speaks  as  if  the  usage  referred  to, 
if  not  introduced  by  himself,  at  least  was  well 
understood  by  him  and  met  with  his  approval. 
After  a  careful  study,  I  can  come  to  no  other 
conclusion. 

Hence  I  am  constrained  to  regard  this  as  another 
of  our  Lost  Beliefs,  and  so  thoroughly  lost  that  if 
it  were  now  preached  from  a  Presbyterian  ptilpit 
it  would  doubtless  be  regarded  as  heresy,  St.  Paul 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 


Lost  Beliefs  I79 


The  loss  of  both  these  beliefs  can  easily  be 
accounted  for.  Two  causes  have  led  to  their 
being  dropped :  one  is  racial,  the  other  is  historical. 

(i)  The  Aryan  race  to  which  we  belong,  of 
all  the  races  of  the  earth,  has  both  by  natural 
organization  and  by  cultivation  a  minimum  of 
superstition  and  a  maximiim  of  incredulity.  Our 
intellectual  tendencies  lead  us  to  believe  nothing 
which  we  cannot  apprehend  by  some  one  or  more 
of  our  physical  senses.  In  proof  of  the  genuineness 
of  Christianity,  the  argument  from  miracles  has 
with  us  pretty  much  lost  its  convincing  power, 
and  this  simply  because  we  cannot  understand  a 
miracle  even  though  we  may  admit  it  to  be  true 
as  a  fact.  No  more  can  we  understand  how  in- 
visible angels  can  affect  our  lives,  nor  how  a 
baptismal  rite  performed  on  a  living  person  can 
be  beneficial  to  an  invisible,  disembodied  spirit. 
But  the  Semitic  races,  to  which  the  Jews  belonged, 
had  no  such  difficulty.  Naturally  and  habitually 
they  believed  in  things  w^hich  they  did  not  pretend 
to  understand.  The  blowing  of  the  winds  was  as 
much  a  mystery  to  them  as  the  raising  of  the  dead 
(John  iii.,  8).  The  mere  fact  that  a  thing  seemed 
to  be  impossible  was  to  them,  or  in  their  way  of 
thinking,  no  reason  why  they  should  refuse  to 
believe  it.  Hence  an  intimate  relationship 
between  this  world  and  the  next,  or  between  the 
living  and  the  dead,  when  authoritatively  taught 
as  true,  presented  no  stimibling-block  to  their 
faith.     We,  on  the  other  hand,  believe  as  little  of 


i8o  Lost  Beliefs 


it  as  possible,  even  though  it  may  be  true.  As  a 
race  we  are  unfortunately  lacking  as  respects 
faith  in  the  unseen. 

To  this  racial  defect  may  fairly  be  attributed 
the  comparatively  small  growth  among  us  of  the 
cultus  of  Spiritualism,  the  religion  of  Emanuel 
Swedenborg,  and  sundry  other  systems  of  belief 
in  which  the  work  or  agency  of  unseen  spirits 
constitutes  so  dominant  an  element.  The  Aryan 
intellect  does  not  take  kindly  to  such  systems  of 
thought.  The  mysteries  that  involve  directly 
our  relationships  with  God  and  eternity  are  as 
many  as  we  care  to  consider.  Just  at  present, 
another  Lost  Belief — faith-cure — comes  in  the 
same  class.  We  now  regard  it  with  great  incredu- 
lity and  for  the  same  reason.  But  of  this  I  will 
have  more  to  say  presently. 

If  it  were  not  too  much  of  a  digression,  it  would 
be  interesting  to  note  how  prominent  in  the 
religious  thought  of  the  Mongolian  race  is  the 
nearness  of  the  relationship  of  the  living  and  the 
dead.  The  fifth  commandment  of  our  decalogue 
has  in  China  a  force  and  potency  away  beyond 
anything  we  ever  thought  of;  for  they  honor 
father  and  mother  not  only  during  life  but  after 
death — the  latter  especially  to  a  degree  which  in 
genuine  zeal  and  pure  devotion  probably  excels 
the  poor  service  that  we  coldly  render  to  the  God 
in  whom  we  profess  to  believe. 

(2)  The  other  reason  for  the  decadence  of 
these  Lost  Beliefs  is  historical. 


Lost  Beliefs  i8i 


In  the  ancient  Hebrew  church,  prior  to  about  the 
sixth  or  seventh  century  B.C.,  nothing  had  been 
revealed  or  was  known  as  to  a  future  life  or  a  future 
world.  Jehovah  dwelt  at  Jerusalem  among  His 
own  people,  or  at  least  it  was  so  believed,  and 
hence  He  and  they  were  locally  very  near  to  each 
other.  Worshipers  in  His  temple  came  into 
His  very  presence.  He  was  personally  there,  as 
was  proven  to  their  satisfaction  by  the  Shekinah 
which,  as  they  believed,  rested  on  or  hovered  over 
the  sacred  ark  in  the  holy  of  holies. 

But  in  the  course  of  time  the  idea  grew  up — 
we  do  not  know  its  origin — that  Jehovah  had 
another  home  somewhere  up  in  the  sky,  which 
came  to  be  known  as  heaven.  Presently,  too, 
it  came  to  be  considered  as  the  home  or  final 
resting-place  of  the  pious  dead.  It  was  thought 
of  as  located  in  or  beyond  the  clouds  (Isa.  xiv., 
14),  but  not  so  very  far  off  as  to  interfere  with 
Jehovah's  continued  personal  presence  in  Jerusa- 
lem for  the  good  or  chastisement  of  His  people. 

Such  ideas  were  natural  enough  at  that  time. 
Science,  as  we  understand  it,  was  then  imknown, 
so  that  the  sim,  moon,  and  stars  were  not  ordinarily 
thought  of  as  being  other  than  mere  appendages 
to  the  earth,  and  not  as  very  far  distant  from  it. 
If  heaven  was  up  among  the  stars,  then  obviously 
it  was  not  so  far  away  as  to  be  beyond  even  the 
limited  conceptions  of  that  day. 

This  idea  of  the  nearness  of  the  next  world  to 
this  continued  down  well  into  the  Christian  era 


1 82  Lost  Beliefs 


(I.  Thess.  iv.,  17).  And  of  course,  so  long  as  they 
were  thought  to  be  near  together,  a  belief  in  the 
intercourse  of  the  dead  and  the  living  was  easy. 
But  early  in  the  development  of  astronomical 
science  it  was  found  that  the  starry  heavens  were 
much  more  distant  than  had  been  supposed. 
Angels  and  spirits  were  removed  farther  off. 
Through  the  idea  of  divine  omnipresence,  already 
an  article  of  faith,  God  and  man  maintained  their 
former  relations,  but  angelic  beings  and  the  dis- 
embodied souls  of  the  saints  gradually  grew  distant, 
dim,  and  shadowy. 

The  discoveries  of  modern  science  have  pushed 
away  the  starry  heavens  almost  into  infinite  space. 
Our  astronomers  now  count  the  distance  of  the 
nearest  star  by  a  number  of  miles  that  runs  some- 
where up  into  the  trillions — a  distance  entirely 
too  great  for  human  comprehension.  How  much 
beyond  that  is  the  farthermost  visible  star,  no 
one  pretends  even  to  guess.  Under  all  our  ideas 
of  heaven  as  a  place  or  locality,  if  it  be  such,  it 
must  be  still  more  distant ;  or  else,  if  nearer,  it  must 
be  invisible,  and  therefore,  as  a  locality,  absolutely 
unknown. 

Thus  it  was  that  in  the  apostolic  church  heaven 
was  thought  of  as  near;  and  the  intercommunion 
of  the  living  and  dead,  or  of  angelic  beings  with 
the  living,  presented  no  difficulty  whatever;  but 
as  heaven  receded  in  distance,  the  faith  of  the 
incredulous  Aryan  grew  weak,  and  finally  broke 
down  altogether. 


Lost  Beliefs  183 


3.  While  faith-cure  latterly  has  had  some 
adherents,  it  was  for  many  centuries  a  Lost  Belief, 
and  in  its  relationship  to  the  present  dominant 
systems  of  Christian  thought  it  must  still  be  so 
classed.  Its  chief  interest  at  the  present  time 
grows  out  of  the  fact  that  it  includes  a  large  section 
of  the  peculiar  *'ism"  that  is  misnamed  "Christian 
Science."  I  believe  that  Christian  Scientists 
repudiate  any  belief  in  what  is  commonly  known  as 
faith-cure,  but  they  do  so  simply  because,  as  they 
deny  the  existence  of  disease,  they  of  course  deny 
the  existence  of  any  ''cure. "  But  as  I  understand 
their  somewhat  nebulous  theories,  they  propose 
by  faith,  prayer,  "good  thoughts,"  etc.,  to  elimi- 
nate from  the  human  consciousness  that  which 
we  call  disease.  This  necessarily  includes  both 
prevention  and  "cure."  In  this  sense  the  follow- 
ers of  Mrs.  Mary  Baker  G.  Eddy  are  faith-curers, 
even  though  they  may  repudiate  the  name. 

That  in  the  apostolic  church  there  was  a  preva- 
lent belief  in  some  kind  of  a  faith-cure,  sufficiently 
appears  from  James  v.,  14,  15  and  I.  Corinthians 
xii.,  9.     Possibly  Mark  vi.,  13  should  be  added. 

It  is  true  that  it  is  not  unusual  for  the  pastors 
of  our  modern  churches  even  yet  to  pray  with  and 
for  the  sick;  but  with  our  racial  lack  of  faith  in 
what  we  do  not  understand,  we  still,  as  respects 
cure,  place  more  reliance  on  the  quinine  of  the 
physician  than  on  the  prayers  of  the  ecclesiastic. 

A  cause  other  than  those  above-named  aided 
largely  in  making  faith-cure  a  Lost  Belief.     Early 


184  Lost  Beliefs 


in  its  history  the  Roman  Catholic  Chiirch,  which 
dominated  the  religious  thought  of  Europe  for 
many  centuries,  interpreted  the  faith-cure  of  the 
apostolic  church  as  being  a  cure  not  of  physical  but 
of  moral  disease,  that  is,  of  sin,  and  accordingly  it 
appropriated  the  passages  above  cited  to  the 
support  of  the  theory  or  doctrine  involved  in  its 
sacrament  of  extreme  unction.  And  while  the 
leaders  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  and  their 
successors  have  never  failed  to  denounce  this  as  a 
perversion  of  Scripture,  they  have  made  no  serious 
effort  to  restore  this  Lost  Belief  to  its  rightful 
place  in  the  system  of  religious  thought  and  life 
in  which  we  live.  Practically  it  has  continued 
to  be  a  Lost  Belief  to  the  present  time,  though  a 
few  efforts  have  latterly  been  made  here  and  there 
to  resuscitate  it. 

It  is  also  true,  and  every  physician  knows  it  to 
be  true,  that  faith  in  something  or  in  somebody  is  a 
powerful  factor  in  the  treatment  of  disease.  It 
may  be  faith  in  the  physician  or  in  his  medicine; 
or  it  may  be  the  faith  which  a  self-confident  man 
may  naturally  have  in  his  own  vitality,  or  a  faith 
prompted  by  his  own  wilful  determination  to  live; 
or  it  may  be  a  faith  based  on  the  promises  and  hopes 
of  the  religion  in  which  he  professes  to  believe. 
For  the  ptu-poses  of  recovery  from  sickness  any 
faith  is  better  than  no  faith. 

Under  the  modern  microbe  theory  of  disease, 
our  best  medical  authorities  are  beginning  to 
suspect  that  faith-cure  may  not  be  quite  so  im- 


Lost  Beliefs  185 


scientific  a  system  as  for  a  thousand  years  or  more 
it  has  been  generally  believed  to  be.  In  some 
diseases,  or  in  some  phases  of  disease,  there  appears 
to  be  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  the  life- 
force  or  vitality  of  the  sick  man  and  the  life  of 
the  imfriendly  microbe — life  vs.  life.  Which  is  the 
stronger  and  more  enduring?  One  or  the  other 
is  bound  to  prevail.  If,  through  the  nervous 
organization  of  the  patient,  his  life-force  or  vital- 
ity (I  use  these  words  to  indicate  something  that 
nobody  fully  understands)  can  be  maintained, 
stimulated,  or  increased,  such  life-force  or  vitality 
may,  it  is  suspected,  act  distinctively  on  the  Hfe 
of  the  disease-producing  microbe  and  kill  it.  In 
that  case  the  man  will  get  well.  Medicine  deleteri- 
ous to  the  microbe  may  aid  in  the  conflict,  but  if 
this  theory  of  life-energy  should  prove  to  be  true 
(as  now  seems  not  improbable),  then  such  agency 
will  very  likely  be  found  to  be  more  eflicacious  than 
the  medicine  administered  in  securing  the  final 
and  desired  result. 

And  what  more  powerful  stimulant  can  there  be 
to  the  maintenance  of  life-force  or  energy  than  a 
strong,  unwavering,  unflinching  faith?  And 
where  else  can  we  look  for  an  equally  sure  and 
equally  reliable  and  equally  efficient  basis  or 
support  for  such  a  faith,  than  in  the  hopes  and 
promises  of  the  holy  and  perfect  religion  which  we 
profess?  The  faith-cure  of  the  apostolic  church 
now  seems  in  a  fair  way  to  be  vindicated  and 
adopted  by  the  best  medical  science  of  the  age, 


1 86  Lost  Beliefs 


and  that  too  at  no  very  distant  day.  Stranger 
things  have  happened  within  the  comparatively 
short  time  covered  by  my  own  recollection. 

And  when,  as  now  seems  not  unlikely,  faith-cure 
becomes  a  science,  I  have  no  doubt  that  we  skepti- 
cal Aryans  will  universally  beHeve  and  adopt  it, 
and  will  do  so  simply  because  it  will  then  appear 
that,  as  respects  the  curing  of  disease,  faith  is  a 
recognizable  force,  operative  in  a  scientific  way,  to 
or  toward  an  attainable  and  desirable  end — the 
preservation  of  life. 

Will  man  then  become  immortal?  Hardly;  but 
we  can  well  afford  to  wait  and  see. 

The  fact  is  that  we  Aryans  have  selected  from 
the  teachings,  practice  and  usages  of  the  apostolic 
church  those  features  or  elements  of  the  Christian 
faith  which  we  deem  to  be  essential  or  vital,  and 
such  others  as,  with  or  without  modification,  may 
suit  our  OTvm  peculiar  inclination  or  habits  of 
thought.  The  rest  we  reject  or  ignore.  In  other 
words,  out  of  the  materials  furnished  to  us,  we  have 
evolved  a  form  of  Christianity  peculiarly  our  own; 
perhaps  I  should  say  several  forms,  for  from  the 
same  data  we  have  developed  the  multitudinous 
beliefs  which  differentiate  our  divided  and  sub- 
divided sects,  though  all  agree  on  certain  essentials. 

What  are  these  essentials?  There  are  three  of 
them,  and  only  three:  A  belief  (i)  in  one  God; 

(2)  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  men,  unto 

(3)  an  immortal  life.  All  else  is  derivative  there- 
from.    Thus  considered,  Christianity  is  the  most 


Lost  Beliefs  187 


flexible  religion  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  Having 
selected  and  evolved  a  system  or  form  of  Chris- 
tianity which  suits  ourselves,  it  is  not  for  us  to  say 
that  other  races,  as  the  Mongolian,  or  Turanian, 
or  Dravidian,  or  even  the  Semitic,  must  adopt  the 
same  just  as  we  have  shaped  it.  I  am  not  thor- 
oughly informed  as  to  the  peculiarities  of  these 
other  races,  but  I  doubt  if  our  Presbyterian  system, 
for  example,  will  ever  commend  itself  to  their 
general  acceptance.  They  all  differ  from  us 
radically,  and  some  of  them  almost  interminably, 
in  manner  or  ways  of  seeing,  thinking,  and  doing 
on  all  subjects  and  in  all  things.  Each  and  all  of 
these  races  have  the  same  right  as  ourselves,  after 
accepting  the  essentials,  to  select  and  evolve  a 
system  or  form  suitable  to  their  own  wants  and 
peculiarities;  and  the  Christian  missions  ought  to 
be  conducted  on  that  basis  and  to  that  end. 

I  believe  in  the  final  and  universal  prevalence  of 
the  Christian  faith,  but  it  will  be  a  form  of  faith 
in  which  all  nations  and  races  can  unite.  It  will, 
in  my  apprehension,  drop  out  as  unessential, 
irrelevant,  and  optional,  fully  nine  tenths  (a  low 
estimate)  of  our  now  dominant  creeds.  Was  it 
not  a  genuine  prophet  of  Jehovah  who  proclaimed: 

"And  what  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee  but  to 
do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly 
with  thy  God?" 

Any  form  of  Christianity  evolved  along  the 
lines  thus  marked  out  is  good  enough  for  any  man 
and  for  all  men — for  all  the  races  of  mankind. 


1 88  Lost  Beliefs 


4.  The  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  con- 
tains, inter  alia,  the  following: 

''The  visible  Chiirch  .  .  .  consists  of  all  those 
throughout  the  world,  that  profess  the  true  religion, 
together  with  their  children"  (chap,  xxv.,  sec.  11). 

So  much  of  the  above  as  I  have  italicized  is,  in 
our  branch  of  the  Protestant  Chiu"ch,  as  well  as 
in  many  others,  practically  a  Lost  Belief.  The 
Roman  Catholic,  the  Greek,  the  Anglican,  the 
Protestant  Episcopal,  and  a  few  other  churches 
both  believe  and  practise  it.  In  such  churches 
the  children  are,  by  right  of  birth,  nominal  members 
of  the  church  from  infancy,  and  usually  are  so 
counted.  On  arriving  at  years  of  discretion,  they 
are,  after  a  short  preparatory  training,  and  on 
assenting  to  a  prescribed  formula,  duly  admitted 
to  full  membership,  and  this  as  a  matter  of  course. 
To  be  a  full  member  of  the  church  is  thought  to  be 
as  much  a  duty,  and  also  a  privilege,  as  for  a  good 
citizen  to  be  a  member  of  some  political  party. 
It  is  so  preeminently  fit  and  proper,  that  in  such 
chiurches  no  one  thinks  of  doubting  or  disputing  it. 

While  we  of  the  Presbyterian  faith  profess  a 
belief  in  the  same  theory  of  church  membership, 
with  us  it  is  scarcely  more  than  a  theory.  In 
practice  we  have  dropped  it,  and  our  usage  is  the 
same  as  if  no  such  words  were  contained  in  our 
creed.  The  only  relic  of  this  belief  that  we  still 
retain  is  the  ordinance  of  Infant  Baptism — in 
support  of  which,  by  the  way,  we  are  unable  to 
cite  any  New  Testament  authority. 


Lost  Beliefs  189 


Whether  we  and  sundry  other  Protestant 
churches  have  gained  or  lost  by  practically  drop- 
ping this  portion  of  our  creed,  is  a  question  I  am  not 
prepared  to  discuss.  Just  at  present,  I  don't 
know;  but  my  impression  is  that  we  have  lost  more 
than  we  have  gained. 


REVELATION 

The  Book  of  Revelation  is  a  book  of  contradic- 
tions. Nothing  could  be  more  matter-of-fact 
than  some  of  its  statements  (chaps,  ii.,  iii.).  In 
other  portions  the  imagery  employed  is  as  wild, 
grotesque,  and  uncouth  as  that  of  Ezekiel  (Rev. 
iv.,  7,  8;  xii.,  3).  Some  passages  show  that  the 
writer  took  positive  pleasure  in  exhibiting  what  it 
is  no  exaggeration  to  call  a  hellish  spirit  of  in- 
human and  malignant  revenge  (xiv.,  8-12);  while 
in  other  passages  he  shows  equal  delight  in  sketch- 
ing the  gloriously  beatific  life  which  awaits  a 
redeemed  humanity  (chaps,  xxi.,  xxii.).  The 
book  deals  with  time  and  eternity,  with  God  and 
Satan,  with  heaven,  earth,  and  hell,  with  saints 
and  harlots,  with  dragons  and  frogs,  and  with 
nearly  everything  that  intervenes. 

The  prevalent  theories  as  to  the  origin  and 
authorship  of  the  book  are  as  discordant  as  its 
contents.  Apparently  good  and  substantial 
reasons  support  the  belief  that  it  had  but  one 
author;  other  equally  substantial  reasons  seem 
to  indicate  that  it  had  a  plurality  of  authors. 
Strong  evidence  exists  that  its  authorship  should 
be     attributed     solely     to     the     apostle    John; 

190 


Revelation  191 


but  many  Biblical  critics  of  high  rank  avow 
their  conviction  that  another  John,  known  as 
John  the  Presbyter,  was  its  author.  Still  others 
aver,  and  for  reasons  of  no  little  cogency,  that 
neither  of  the  two  wrote  it,  and  that  its  author 
is  unknown.  Again,  the  date  of  its  composition  is 
an  unsettled  matter — all  possible  dates  being 
assigned  by  equally  good  Biblical  scholars  from 
about  A.D.  66  down  through  a  hundred  or  more 
years  thereafter.  Nor  can  the  advocates  of  these 
various  theories  be  arranged  under  any  general 
classification  of  orthodox  and  heretical,  for  some  of 
our  most  unorthodox  critics  are  among  the  strong- 
est advocates  of  orthodox  theories,  and  vice  versa. 

From  my  standpoint,  however,  none  of  these 
variant  theories  have  anything  to  do  with  the 
canonical  character  of  the  book.  I  accept  it  as  a 
part  of  the  inspired  record,  no  matter  who  wrote 
it,  nor  when  it  was  written,  nor  whether  it  had  one 
or  several  authors.  Premising  this,  I  will  present 
some  of  the  facts  and  conclusions  which  I  think 
are  at  least  reasonably  clear  and  which,  if  kept  in 
mind,  will  aid  materially  in  an  understanding  of 
its  somewhat  obsciu-e  and  confusing  contents. 

I.  The  first  three  chapters  were  written  at  a 
time  of  great  and  alarming  religious  decadence  in 
the  chiurches  of  Western  Asia;  and  they  were 
written  for  the  purpose  of  arresting  such  decadence 
and  restoring  therein  the  primitive  standards  of 
faith  and  practice.  The  specific  contents  of  the 
several   epistles   to    the    seven    churches   clearly 


192  Revelation 


prove  so  much.  Out  of  the  seven,  only  two, 
Smyrna  and  Philadelphia,  are  exempt  from  the 
severest  reproof  and  warning.  Gross  heresies  and 
alarming  degeneracy  marked  the  religious  life 
of  all  the  others.  And  what  was  true  of  these 
seven  was  probably  true  of  the  churches  of  that 
region  generally;  for,  standing  as  they  did  at  the 
leading  centers  of  influence,  they  doubtless  rep- 
resented the  general  drift  of  the  religious  develop- 
ment of  the  day. 

2.  These  churches  were  of  Paul's  planting;  and 
though  he  foresaw  and  predicted  such  a  period  of 
degeneracy  (Acts  xx.,  29,  30),  it  is  reasonably 
certain  from  the  contents  of  his  later  epistles, 
particularly  Ephesians  and  Colossians  (written 
about  A.D.  62),  that  it  did  not  come  during  his 
lifetime. 

3.  After  the  death  of  Paul  an  apparently 
reliable  tradition  indicates  that  John  the  Apostle 
succeeded  to  the  bishopric  of  these  churches. 
The  writer  of  these  three  chapters  writes  as  their 
Bishop  properly  might,  that  is,  with  a  tone  of 
authority — just  as  if  he  had  an  official  right  to  say 
what  he  did,  and  a  right  which  these  churches 
could  not  refuse  to  recognize. 

These  facts  would  seem  fully  to  justify  the 
conclusion  that  John  the  Apostle  was  the  writer 
of  these  first  three  chapters,  and  that  they  were 
written  some  years  after  Paul's  death,  and  some- 
where along  toward  the  end  of  the  first  century, 
say  about  a.d.  90-92. 


Revelation  193 


4.  It  also  appears  that  at  the  time  John  wrote 
these  three  chapters  there  existed  in  his  mind  an 
expectation  of  some  general  and  severe  persecu- 
tions which  were  soon  to  come  on  the  churches 
(Rev.  ii.,  10,  16,  23;  iii.,  3,  10,  19).  vSuch  a  perse- 
cution arose  under  the  Emperor  Domitian,  a.d. 
93~96.  So  far  as  we  know,  this  was  the  first 
general  persecution  of  Christians  as  such,  though 
numerous  local  persecutions  had  occurred  pre- 
viously, some  of  which  were  both  bitter  and  brutal. 
But  up  to  the  time  of  Domitian,  while  many 
individual  Christians,  and  in  fact  large  numbers  of 
them  here  and  there  in  the  empire,  had  suffered 
grievously  on  account  of  their  faith,  and  especially 
so  at  Rome  under  Nero  (a.d.  64-68),  the  general 
policy  of  the  empire  was  not  at  first  hostile  to  the 
church  as  such.  But  some  time  during  the  twenty- 
five  years  that  intervened  between  Nero  and 
Domitian  the  imperial  authorities  gradually  woke 
up  to  the  fact  that  the  supremacy  of  the  church 
meant  the  destruction  of  the  empire,  and  so  it 
turned  out.  For  after  two  or  three  centuries  of 
bitter  and  bloody  conflict  the  chiu-ch  triumphed, 
the  empire  was  defeated  and  (except  in  name) 
perished  from  the  earth  by  a  slow  process  of 
disintegration.  The  name  continued  to  the  time 
of  the  first  Napoleon,  who  finally  wiped  it  out, 

A.  D.  1805. 

5.  These  first  three  chapters  clearly  constitute 
by  themselves  a  separate  section  of  the  book. 
I  see  in  them  no  direct  relevancy  to  what  follows. 


194  Revelation 


either  in  respect  of  subject-matter,  authorship, 
or  date  of  composition.  The  remainder  of  the 
book  is  for  the  most  part  dramatic  in  character, 
and  seems  to  be  made  up  chiefly  of  two  separate 
dramas,  composed  at  different  times;  and,  as  here 
recorded,  the  conclusion  of  one  runs  into  the 
opening  sections  of  the  other.  The  concluding 
drama  is  apparently  the  earlier  in  date,  and 
greatly  excels  the  first  in  point  of  sublimity  and 
grandeur.  Both,  however,  treat  of  the  same 
subject  and  in  about  the  same  way;  both  have  a 
common  origin  and  proceed  to  a  common  end. 
All  this  I  hope  to  make  clear  as  we  proceed. 

6.  The  first  drama,  as  recorded,  opens  with 
chapter  iv.  Here  we  enter  an  entirely  different 
atmosphere,  or  come  into  new  conditions  of 
thought  and  experience.  The  powers  of  heaven — 
so  runs  the  vision  or  dream — are  assembled  in  a 
council-room  or  hall  of  state,  such  as  was  usual  in 
Oriental  courts.  The  Book  of  Job  opens  in  the 
same  way.  The  writer,  as  a  prophet  or  seer,  in 
vision  sees  himself  admitted,  and  he  first  describes 
the  glorious  personnel  of  the  assemblage  and  the 
magnificence  of  the  place  where  the  council  was 
held.  He  tells  us  who  were  there,  and  describes 
in  detail  the  exercises  of  devout  worship  by  which 
the  council  was  opened  and  constituted.  Obvious- 
ly so  grand  a  council  would  be  held  only  for  some 
great  purpose,  a  purpose  worthy  of  so  great  an 
occasion.  A  sealed  book  or  roll — a  roll  seven  times 
sealed    and    therefore    presumptively    containing 


Revelation  195 


something  of  vital  importance  to  the  universe  at 
large — was  held  in  the  hand  of  the  presiding  Deity. 
Evidently  the  coimcil  assembled  with  a  confident 
expectation  that  its  contents  would  be  made 
known,  and  that  thus  would  be  learned  what  the 
future  had  in  store  for  the  world  or  for  the  church 
(Rev.  iv.,  i).  That  the  citizens  of  heaven  were 
as  ignorant  on  such  subjects,  and  as  anxious  to 
learn,  as  the  dwellers  on  earth,  may  fairly  be  in- 
ferred from  I.  Peter  i.,  12,  and  Mark  xiii.,  32. 

The  drama,  or  tragedy — for  such  it  was — is 
opened  by  the  proclamation  of  an  angelic  herald 
of  high  rank  (Rev.  v.,  2)  calling  on  any  one  in  the 
wide  universe  who  deems  himself  qualified  for  the 
work,  to  come  forward  and  break  the  seals  and 
open  the  roll.  A  pause  followed :  no  one  immediate- 
ly appeared ;  and  those  who  were  present  hesitated, 
as  well  they  might,  to  respond  to  such  a  call. 
So  momentous  was  the  occasion — so  awe-inspiring 
and  so  pregnant  for  weal  or  woe — that  for  a  time 
no  one  ventiu-ed  to  volunteer.  The  distress  of 
the  Seer  (verse  4) — who  evidently  represented 
our  humanity — doubtless  expressed  the  feeling 
of  disappointment  that  prevailed  throughout  the 
assemblage.  Finally  one  was  found — no  less  a 
person  than  He  who  redeemed  humanity.  His 
worthiness  could  not  be  questioned ;  His  willingness 
was  His  own;  and  thereupon  the  entire  council 
unite  in  joyous  acclaim  of  exalted  praise  (verses 
9,  10).  Angels  innimierabie  join  in  the  chorus 
(verses  11,  12),  and  even  feeble  humanity  itself 


196  Revelation 


finds  in  the  prospect  good  reason  for  the  most 
ecstatic  rejoicing  (verses  12,  14).  The  world  or, 
perhaps  better,  the  church  will  now  learn  for  the 
first  time  what  not  even  the  angels  knew,  the 
coming  prospects  and  final  success  of  the  work  of 
redemption. 

7.  The  differently  colored  horses  and  different- 
ly accoutred  riders  that  appeared  and  departed  on 
their  respective  missions,  on  the  breaking  of  the 
first  four  seals  (vi.,  1-8),  were  not  regarded  by  the 
Seer  as  involving  the  particular  disclosures  he  was 
looking  for:  hence  he  passed  them  by  with  but  a 
brief  mention  of  each.  They  revealed  nothing 
but  what  was  common  in  human  history,  and  had 
been  so  for  thousands  of  years.  War  and  conquest, 
famine,  starvation,  and  death,  ''Man's  inhuman- 
ity to  man,"  were  written  all  over  the  records  of 
the  past.  That  this  should  continue  for  all  time, 
the  Seer  could  not  believe.  Hence  he  hurried 
on  to  the  opening  of  the  fifth  seal  (verses  9-1 1). 
With  this  the  great  subject-matter  of  the  awful 
drama  is  brought  to  the  front,  for  the  souls  of  the 
victims  of  Roman  atrocity,  from  Nero  to  Domitian, 
as  though  unable  longer  to  restrain  their  intense 
longing  for  the  revenge  on  hated  Rome,  shout  out 
{i.e.y  "with  a  great  voice")  their  appeal:  "How 
long,  O  Master,  the  holy  and  true,  dost  thou  not 
judge  and  avenge  our  blood  on  them  that  dwell 
on  the  earth?"  (Verse  10.) 

Here  we  have  the  text,  the  key  note,  the  central 
thought  of  this  wonderful  drama,  to  the  portrayal 


Revelation  197 


or  delineation  of  which  a  good  part  of  the  book  is 
directly  devoted.  Revenge  on  Rome  (figuratively 
called  Babylon,  for  a  direct  use  of  the  name  Rome 
would  have  been  high  treason)  breathes  through, 
animates,  and  dominates  the  majestic  develop- 
ment of  this  great  drama  as  well  as  the  next.  For 
designating  and  characterizing  hated  Rome,  no 
term  of  execration  was  too  severe,  too  horrible, 
too  obnoxious,  or  too  Ulthy.  As  more  fully 
characterized  in  the  second  drama,  Rome  was  a 
monstrous,  hideous,  misshapen  dragon  (xii.,  3), 
a  ferocious,  blasphemous  beast  (xiii.,  i,  2),  the 
ally  of  Satan  (xii.,  9),  a  gorgeously  arrayed  but 
filthy  harlot — the  incarnation  of  harlotry,  and  as 
such  gorged  to  drimkenness,  "with  the  blood  of 
the  saints"  (xvii.,  1-6).  Accordingly  the  writer 
cursed  Rome,  as  Job  in  his  dire  affliction  cursed 
the  day  of  his  birth  (Job  iii.,  1-19);  as  Shimei 
cursed  David  (II.  Sam.  xvi.,  5-14) ;  as  the  Psalmist 
cursed  Edom  (Ps.  cxxxvii.,  7-9);  as  Isaiah  cursed 
the  real  Babylon  (Isa.  xiii.,  xiv.).  In  the  matter  of 
invoking  curses  on  their  enemies,  the  people  of  the 
Semitic  races  are  said  to  possess  exceptional 
fluency,  and  the  Book  of  Revelation  bears  evidence 
of  this. 

But  the  time  for  this  revenge  had  not,  in  the 
divine  plan,  yet  come.  The  persecution  of  the 
church  was  not  yet  ended.  Still  others  of  ''their 
feUow-servants  and  their  brethren"  were  yet  to 
imdergo  the  terrible  experiences  of  martyrdom. 
Until  they  "should  have  fulfilled  their  course,'* 


198  Revelation 


these  appellants  for  vengeance  must  wait,  even 
though  their  appeal  was  just.  In  the  meantime, 
and  apparently  as  a  special  mark  of  honor — for 
such  was  the  Oriental  usage — to  each  one  was  given 
^'a  white  robe"  (Rev.  vi.,  11). 

8.  I  do  not  think  it  possible  to  correlate  the 
different  elements  of  this  dramatic  picture,  or 
panorama,  with  the  successive  events  of  human 
history  to  any  such  extent  as  to  find  even  an 
approximately  exact  correspondence  therewith. 
In  construing  the  visions,  the  dreams  of  prophets 
and  seers,  we  are  to  look  only  for  general  effects, 
not  for  historical  details.  Neither,  as  a  general 
rule,  does  the  element  of  duration  or  of  time-how- 
long  enter  into  the  dramatic  picture.  The  writer 
records  what  he  sees,  and  usually,  though  not 
always,  notes  the  order  in  which  the  incidents  of 
the  vision  follow  each  other,  but  rarely  the  time 
occupied  by  each — much  as  in  an  ordinary  dream, 
say  of  a  voyage  to  Europe  and  back,  which,  though 
vivid  and  apparently  real,  may  last  only  a  few 
minutes.  Such  exceptions  as  occur  in  the  present 
narrative  will  be  noted  as  we  proceed. 

For  these  reasons  I  am  unable  to  speak  with 
any  approach  to  certainty  as  to  the  duration  of 
time  which  may  be  covered  by  the  events  pictured 
or  referred  to  as  occurring  thus  far.  The  writer 
gives  no  key  by  which  that  matter  may  be  deter- 
mined. Probably  he  himself  did  not  know,  for 
otherwise  we  may  reasonably  presume  that  he 
would  have  told  us.     Nor  have  I  yet  found  any 


Revelation  199 


commentator  whose  exposition  herein  has  appealed 
to  me  as  sufficiently  clear  and  certain  to  be  adopted 
as  a  matter  of  belief  or  faith.  For  myself,  I  am 
in  the  position  of  one  awaiting  further  light  and 
knowledge. 

9.  The  marvelous  panorama  that  gradually 
unrolled  before  the  vision  of  the  writer  on  the 
opening  of  the  sixth  seal  (Rev.  vi.,  12-17)  bears  a 
striking  resemblance  to  the  events  which,  in  the 
popular  apprehension  of  the  early  church,  were 
immediately  associated  with  the  expected  early 
return  of  the  Master — an  event  which  Paiil  con- 
fidently looked  for  during  the  lifetime  of  the  genera- 
tion then  living  (I.  Thess.  iv.,  17).  Peter  also 
thought  that  it  was  near  at  hand  (I.  Pet.  iv.,  7), 
as  also  did  the  writer  of  the  book  we  are  considering 
(Rev.  xxii.,  7,  12,  20).  The  occurrence  of  un- 
natural phenomena  in  the  natural  world  was 
generally  beHeved  to  forecast  His  coming.  He 
himself  foretold  such  signs  (Matt,  xxiv.,  29;  Luke 
xxi.,  25-27) ;  so  did  Peter  (II.  Pet.  iii.,  10-13);  and 
Paul  appears  to  have  had  somewhat  similar 
expectations  (II.  Thess.  i.,  7-10).  The  events 
which  thus,  in  the  writer's  vision,  followed  the 
opening  of  the  sixth  seal,  were  doubtless  supposed 
by  him  to  indicate  that  the  second  coming  of 
Christ  was  thereby  presaged,  that  it  was  near  at 
hand,  and  that  when  He  came,  it  would  be  partly 
at  least  for  vengeance  upon  Rome.  So  much  at 
least  seems  to  be  implied  in  Revelation  vi.,  17: 
"a  great  day  of  wrath"  was  impending,  and  so 


200  Revelation 


terrible  would  that  wrath  be  that  no  one  would  be 
"able  to  stand." 

10.  Apparently  as  a  part  of  the  chaos  that 
followed  the  opening  of  the  sixth  seal,  the  writer 
saw  the  vision  of  the  four  angels  of  chapter  vii., 
1-3.  At  this  moment  the  majestic  development 
of  the  drama  is  arrested,  for  not  yet  have  we  had 
any  report  of  the  later  martyrs,  the  ''fellow- 
servants"  and  "brethren"  who,  according  to 
chapter  vi.,  11,  were  to  meet  their  fate  and  be 
gathered  in  before  the  appeal  of  the  earlier  martyrs 
(verse  10)  for  revenge  could  be  entertained.  These 
must  be  accounted  for,  and  their  safety  assured.' 
Accordingly,  a  census  is  attempted:  "a  hundred 
and  forty  and  four  thousand,  sealed  out  of  every 
tribe  of  the  children  of  Israel"  (Rev.  vii.,  4)  ex- 
presses the  idea  that  the  salvation  of  Israel  is  com- 
plete :  they  are  all  there.  The  writer  was  evidently 
a  Jew  by  nationality,  and  he  gloried  in  a  vision  of 
the  realization  of  what  to  Paul  in  his  day  was  not 
in  ; sight — the  salvation  of  Israel  (Rom.  xi.,  25). 
The  Gentiles  too  were  there,  in  countless  numbers, 
"out  of  every  nation,  and  of  all  tribes  and  peoples 
and  tongues"  (Rev.  vii.,  9).  While  especial 
mention  is  made  of  those  who  had  "come  out  of 
the  great  tribulation"  (verse  14),  as  though  per- 
secution had  spent  its  fury,  the  account  seems  to 
indicate  that  all  the  redeemed  had  been  gathered 
in,  and  the  writer  might  very  naturally  have 
thought  so,  in  view  of  his  expectation  that  the 
Master  was  coming  "quickly,"  as  already  noted. 


Revelation  201 


And  if  the  harvest  unto  eternal  Hfe  was  then 
thought  to  be  complete,  nothing  coiild  be  more 
fitting  than  the  songs  of  grateful  praise  that 
celebrated  the  consummation  of  the  great  work  of 
human  redemption  (verses  10,  11).  The  best 
that  heaven  offered  or  could  offer  was  at  their 
disposal  (verses  15-17),  and  they  awaited  the 
opening  of  the  seventh  and  last  seal,  v/hich  would 
surely  bring  the  longed-for  but  delayed  revenge 
on  persecuting  Rome. 

II.  On  this,  "there  followed  a  silence  in 
heaven  about  the  space  of  half  an  hour"  (Rev. 
viii.,  i) — as  though  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  celes- 
tial world,  angels  and  men,  stood  aghast  or  in  terror 
at  what  was  presented  to  their  view.  The  time 
for  revenge,  not  only  on  Rome  but  on  all  the 
agencies  of  evil,  had  now  come ;  and  so  appalling 
was  the  revenge  to  be  that  no  one  put  forth  either 
hand  or  voice  to  hasten  its  infliction.  Even  the 
martyred  victims  of  the  most  cruel  atrocities  that 
human  depravity  could  suggest  or  contrive  were 
silent  with  the  rest,  much  as  if  they  too  hesitated 
at  the  awfulness  of  the  vengeance  they  had  so 
ardently  implored.  But  the  last  seal  was  broken; 
the  divine  decree  must  be  executed,  and  the  instru- 
ments of  vengeance,  seven  angels  with  seven 
trumpets,  stood  forth  in  array,  and  "prepared 
themselves  to  sound"  (verse  6). 

Before  they  did  so,  however,  as  if  some  further 
justification  were  needed  for  the  dreaded  events 
that  were  to  follow,  the  "prayers  of  all  the  saints" 


202  Revelation 


— doubtless  the  prayers  of  the  thousands  of  mar- 
tyrs mangled  alive  by  savage  beasts  or  burned 
alive  by  more  savage  men,  as  a  means  of  adorning 
the  festal  days  and  nights  of  Roman  brutality; 
prayers  that  could  not  be  forgotten  for  deliverance 
from  atrocities  that  could  not  be  forgiven — these 
prayers  of  the  martyred  saints  were  gathered 
together  as  incense,  and  burned  in  the  presence 
of  Him  of  whom  the  record  runs:  "Vengeance  is 
mine;  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord"  (Rom.  xii.,  19). 
And  in  attestation  of  the  fact  that  in  the  infliction 
of  the  coming  retribution  of  Rome  no  mercy  was  to 
be  shown,  the  angel  loaded  the  now  empty  censer 
with  fire  from  the  altar  of  vengeance,  and  tragically 
''cast  it  upon  the  earth"  (Rev.  viii.,  3-5).  Thus, 
emblematically,  the  doom  of  human  and  satanic 
wickedness  was  then  sealed;  probation  was  ended, 
and  the  instruments  or  agencies  of  divine  retribu- 
tion proceeded  to  their  work. 

12.  It  is  not  necessary  for  my  present  purpose 
to  follow  in  detail  the  horrors  narrated  as  the  de- 
velopment of  this  aw^ul  drama  slowly  proceeds. 
It  is  not  pleasant  reading,  for  it  is  written  in  the 
spirit  of  Moses  when  he  wrote  Deuteronomy  xxviii., 
15-68;  in  the  spirit  of  Samuel  and  Saul  when  they 
wiped  out  Amalek  (II.  Sam.  i.,  15) ;  in  the  spirit  of 
David  when  he  tortured  his  captives  to  death  under 
saws  and  harrows  and  axes  and  in  brick-kilns  (II. 
Sam.  xii.,  31) ;  in  the  spirit  of  the  writer  of  the  im- 
precatory Psalms — the  spirit  which  everywhere  and 
always  demands  "an  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth 


Revelation  203 


for  a  tooth"  (Matt,  v.,  38),  and  sometimes  with 
compound  interest  added.     Thus  runs  the  record 
from  Revelation  viii.,  6  through  chapters  ix.,  x., 
to  xi.,  13.     Nor  do  I  find  anything  in  this  portion 
of  the  book  that  appears  to  correspond  with  any- 
specific  history  of   which   we  have   any  record. 
That  it  all  once  had  a  meaning  does  not  admit  of 
doubt,  but  the  key  to  its  meaning  is  lost;  and  the 
asserted  analogies  between  the  events  of  subse- 
quent history  and  the  vivid  but  indefinite  sketches 
of    these    chapters    are    altogether    too    remote, 
imcertain,  or  fanciful  to  furnish  anything  like  a 
reliable  guide  for  the  purpose  of  interpretation. 
13.     With  these  chapters,  however,  we  come  to 
one  of  the  vexing  questions  in  Biblical  criticism. 
Chapter  x.  (except  verse  7)  and  chapter  xi.,  1-13 
were  apparently  written  by  some  other  and  earlier 
writer  than  the  author  of  the  previous  portions  of 
the    book.     The   latter,    probably   finding    them 
extant  and  anonymous,  and  that  they  suited  his 
purpose,  inserted  them  at  this  place  in  his  narra- 
tive.    While  this  view  is  somewhat  conjectural, 
the  best  indications  point  that  way.     The  writers 
were  certainly  different,  for  one  is  represented  as 
being  in  heaven  during  the  running  of  his  vision 
(Rev.  iv.,    I,  2),   while  the  other  was  on  earth 
(Rev.   X.,    1-4).     One  vision   was  based  on  the 
disclostires  of  a  sealed  book  or  roll  (Rev.  v.,  i); 
the  other  on  an  open  book  or  roll  (Rev.  x.,  8). 
For  reasons  already  stated,  I  would  assign  the 
portion  of  the  book  already  considered  to  a  date 


204  Revelation 


subsequent  to  the  general  persecution  under  the 
Emperor  Domitian,  and  quite  near  to  the  end  of 
the  first  century.  Chapter  xi.,  however,  was 
probably  written  prior  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  a.d.  70,  for  the  temple  is  represented  as 
still  standing  (verses  1,2).  As  above  stated,  I  am 
strongly  inclined  to  the  view  that  the  author  of  the 
previous  chapters,  finding  an  earlier  apocalypse 
in  existence  of  a  like  general  trend — its  author  per- 
haps unknown — one  that  sufficiently  suited  his 
purpose,  adopted  portions  of  it,  with  perhaps  some 
changes  and  corrections,  including  the  insertion 
of  chapter  x.,  7.  And  it  suited  his  purpose  partly 
perhaps  because  it  announced  the  near  coming  of 
the  end  of  all  things  (verse  6),  as  also  the  complete 
revelation  or  disclosure  of  the  last  of  the  divine 
mysteries ;  and  if,  as  perhaps  he  reasonably  might, 
he  should  understand  that  "Sodom  and  Egypt" 
(Rev.  xi.,  8) — names  highly  obnoxious  in  Jewish 
thought — meant  hated  Rome,  and  that  the 
earthquake  of  verse  13  meant  its  destruction,  its 
general  drift  and  meaning  would  lie  along  the 
lines  of  the  visions  he  was  then  narrating. 

14.  With  the  sounding  of  the  seventh  and  last 
of  the  trumpets  of  vengeance,  the  Seer  presents  us 
(verses  15-19)  a  scene  of  ecstatic  rejoicing  in 
heaven  over  the  complete  establishment  to  all 
eternity  of  "the  kingdom  of  otir  Lord,  and  of  his 
Christ"  (verse  15),  as  also  over  the  final  triumph 
of  divine  wrath  against  the  nations,  and  the 
immediate  reward  to  "the  prophets,  and  to  the 


Revelation  205 


saints,  and  to  them  that  fear  thy  name"  (verse 
18).  Obviously  the  full  consummation  was 
thought  to  be  then  very  close  at  hand.  The  holy 
temple  in  Jerusalem,  now  lying  in  ruins  for  twenty 
years  or  more,  was  reopened  in  heaven;  the  old 
Mosaic  ark  of  the  covenant,  probably  lost  when 
Nebuchadnezzar  ravaged  the  city  about  six 
hundred  years  before,  is  refound;  while  the  un- 
usual portents  of  nature  indicate  the  coming  of 
great  events  (verse  19). 

15.  Apparently  this  particular  drama  ends  at 
this  point,  and  with  chapter  xii.  we  are  introduced 
to  another,  the  opening  chapters  of  which  are  lost. 
But  in  what  we  have  the  writer  turns  back  and 
begins  again  with  an  era  of  violent  persecution  and 
a  persecution  which,  by  historical  allusions,  is 
fairly  well-identified  with  that  of  Nero,  a.d.  64-68, 
which  followed  the  burning  of  Rome,  and  a  des- 
cription of  which  burning,  it  may  be  added,  is 
probably  reproduced  in  chapter  xviii.,  9-19.  The 
dramatic  form  of  representation  previously  used 
is  still  preserved.  The  same  general  subject  is 
also  adhered  to — revenge  on  Rome  (still  desig- 
nated as  Babylon)  for  the  fearful  persecutions 
inflicted  on  the  saints,  and  a  sketch  or  delineation 
of  the  final  and  glorious  rewards  of  the  latter  in 
the  New  Jerusalem — for  the  old  Jerusalem  was 
laid  waste. 

16.  As  the  introductory  part  of  this  added 
drama  is  lost  (and  of  course  previous  historical 
allusions  are  lost  with  it),  the  historical  meaning, 


2o6  Revelation 


if  there  be  any,  involved  in  the  vision  of  the  star- 
crowned  and  sun-clad  woman  (Rev.  xii.,  i-6,  13- 
17),  and  in  the  vision  of  the  war  in  heaven  (verses 
7-12),  must  be  matters  of  conjecture.  None  of 
the  numerous  commentaries  that  I  have  been 
able  to  consult  give  any  explanation  which  I  can 
regard  as  satisfactory.  The  proper  interpretation 
of  visions  and  dreams  is  a  department  of  Biblical 
criticism  in  which  our  Biblical  scholars  have  not 
yet  attained  to  a  very  high  state  of  proficiency. 
Hence,  as  to  these  two  particular  visions,  I  pass 
them  by  with  only  a  comment  or  two. 

(i)  Of  the  war  in  heaven  the  account  reads 
much  as  if  Satan,  up  into  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  era,  still  continued  to  have,  and  to 
exercise,  as  in  the  days  of  Job  (Job  i.,  6),  and  as  in 
the  later  time  of  Zechariah  (Zech.  iii.,  i,  2),  a  right 
or  privilege  of  free  entrance  into  the  court  of 
heaven,  where  he  appears  as  "accuser"  of  those 
who  ''loved  not  their  Hfe  even  imto  death, "  which 
obviously  means  the  redeemed  martyrs ;  but  that  at 
a  time  subsequent  (not  prior,  as  generally  believed) 
to  the  sacrifice  on  Calvary,  he  and  his  angels  were 
expelled  thence  and  "cast  down  to  the  earth" 
where,  on  accoimt  of  his  "great  wrath,"  and 
because  he  had  but  a  "short  time"  in  which  to 
work  before  the  anticipated  early  return  of  Jesus 
the  Master,  it  was  evidently  expected  that  he 
would  play  havoc,  probably  as  the  instigator  of 
renewed  and  more  virulent  persecution  against 
the  saints  of  the  Most  High.     How  much  of  this 


Revelation  207 


is  figiirative,  and,  if  figurative,  what  it  means; 
how  much,  if  any,  is  historical,  and  how  or  when 
fulfilled,  the  record  does  not  disclose.  //  historical 
it  is  widely  at  variance  with  the  views  generally 
taught  in  our  church  as  to  the  time  when  Satan  was 
expelled  from  heaven.  But  be  this  as  it  may,  the 
song  of  triimiph  (Rev.  xii.,  10-12)  over  the  defeat 
and  expulsion  of  Satan  is  worthy  the  occasion. 
In  the  working  out  of  the  plan  of  redemption,  this 
event  was  evidently  thought  to  be  ''the  beginning 
of  the  end, "  or  at  least  the  first  of  the  victories  that 
were  to  bring  it  about. 

(2)  The  apocalypse  of  the  woman  whom  all 
nature  delighted  to  honor  (verses  1-6,  13-17), 
and  in  whose  child  were  centered  the  hopes  of 
humanity  for  its  final  redemption,  introduces  a 
repulsive  dragon  as  the  chief  sotirce  or  agency  of 
persecution.  Its  heads,  horns,  and  diadems  (verse 
3)  seem  to  associate  it  closely  in  the  thought  of  the 
Seer  with  the  Caesarean  Hne  of  emperors,  of  whom 
Nero  was  the  last  and  the  worst.  It  is  generally 
conceded,  and  apparently  for  good  reasons,  that  in 
chapter  xiii.,  we  have  a  sketch  of  the  Emperor  Nero 
as  "a  beast"  (which  he  undoubtedly  was),  and  of 
some  one  of  the  obsequious  ministers  of  his  beastly 
passions,  who  therefore  was  "another  beast,"  and 
also  of  the  cruelties  and  barbarities  of  the  Neronian 
persecution  of  a.d.  64-68.  To  have  named  Nero 
in  that  connection  would  have  been  treasonable, 
and  therefore  to  the  writer  fatal,  for  the  Roman 
sword  (gladius),  though  short,  could  reach  to  the 


2o8  Revelation 


utmost  limits  of  the  empire.  But  a  secret  key 
(verse  i8)  sufficiently  identified  him  to  Christian 
readers,  and  the  mere  use  of  the  words  ''dragon" 
and  ''beast"  by  the  writer  (evidently  a  Jew  by 
descent  and  early  training)  indicates  an  overpower- 
ing execration  with  which  the  surviving  Christians 
invested  the  memory  of  their  persecutors,  and  is  a 
corresponding  index  to  the  a\\^ulness  of  the  perse- 
cutions. In  Jewish  thought  the  names  of  animals 
regarded  as  unclean  expressed  the  acme  of  oppro- 
brium and  hate  (Matt,  vii.,  6;  xv.,  26).  That  in 
this  particular  case  the  names  were  deserved 
fully  appears  from  the  fragmentary  remains  of  the 
history  of  that  period.  At  that  time,  as  fully  as 
ever  afterward,  was  probably  exemplified  "the  pa- 
tience and  the  faith  of  the  saints"  (Rev.  xiii.,  10). 

17.  In  chapter  xiv.,  1-7,  the  Seer  seems  to  be 
setting  forth,  perhaps  for  the  consolation  and 
encouragement  of  the  persecuted  saints,  his 
conception  of  Mount  Zion,  the  home  of  the  re- 
deemed martyrs — ^in  substance  about  as  follows: 

(i)  A  sacred  number,  say  seven  or  twelve, 
multiplied  by  itself,  with  an  added  cipher  or  two, 
expressed  in  Jewish  thought  that  which  was  endless 
or  practically  infinite  (Matt,  xviii.,  22).  Here 
three  ciphers  added  to  the  product  gave  a  faint 
expression  of  the  number  of  the  redeemed — a 
number  so  great  that  the  chorus  of  their  voices  in 
song  had  a  grandeur  and  power  not  unlike  that  of 
the  most  sublime  of  nature's  manifestations 
(Rev.  xiv.,  I,  2). 


Revelation  209 


(2)  The  music  of  the  next  world  will  be  some- 
thing entirely  new,  and  also  something  beyond 
human  comprehension  (verse  3). 

(3)  Our  Saviour's  statement  as  to  the  absence 
of  sexual  life  and  relations  in  the  next  world  (Luke 
XX.,  35,  36)  will  be  Hterally  verified  (Rev.  xiv.,  4). 

(4)  The  universal  curse  of  human  lying  will 
not  be  found  there,  and  no  ''blemish"  will  exist 
(verse  5) — the  force  and  significance  of  this  last 
fact  resting  on  the  other  fact  that,  by  a  "blemish" 
of  any  kind,  both  animals  and  men  were,  in  the 
thought  of  that  day,  rendered  unfit  for  the  service 
of  the  Most  High  (Lev.  i.,  3;  xxi.,  21). 

(5)  Another  gospel  will  then  be  promulgated, 
but  what  it  will  consist  of,  or  how  it  will  differ 
from  our  present  gospel,  is  not  stated  (Rev.  xiv., 
6). 

18.  But  during  this  time  Bab^don  (or  Rome), 
''the  dragon,"  had  not  been  forgotten;  nor  had 
Nero,  "the  beast."  The  depth  and  severity  of 
the  vengeance  yet  to  be  taken  on  them,  and  now 
prophetically  announced  (verses  8-12),  were  some- 
thing appalling;  for  they  were  to  be  compelled  to 
"  drink  of  the  wine  of  the  wrath  of  God,  undiluted, 
in  the  cup  of  His  anger  .  .  .  and  the  smoke  of 
their  torment  goeth  up  for  ever  and  ever"  (verses 
10,  11).  If  hell  contains  any  doom  more  terrible 
than  that,  it  is  not  recorded.  The  agonizing 
prayer  of  the  martyrs  (Rev.  vi.,  10)  was  now  heard, 
and  assurances  were  given  of  frightful  vengeance. 
But  as  the  Neronian  period  of  martyrdom  was 


210  Revelation 


not  yet  ended,  the  Seer  was  directed  to  write  of 
those  who  were  yet  to  suffer  (Rev.  xiv.,  13): 

"Blessed  are  the  dead  who  die  in  the  Lord  from 
henceforth : 

"Yea,  saith  the  Spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from 
their  labors; 

"For  their  works  follow  with  them." 

19.  The  vision  of  the  reaping  of  the  earth 
(verses  14-20)  presents  no  facts  which  I  am  able 
to  render  into  actual  history.  Apparently  it  is 
prophetic  of  a  final  harvest,  but  it  is  a  harvest  of 
evil  and  not  of  good.  The  entire  fruits  of  the 
reaping  are  represented  as  cast  "into  the  great 
winepress  of  the  wrath  of  God"  (verse  19). 
Nothing  is  gathered  into  life  eternal.  This  cer- 
tainly is  not  the  reaping  our  Saviour  told  of  in 
Matthew  xiii.,  37-43,  nor  do  I  know  of  any  other 
reaping  prophetically  foretold  to  which  it  can 
properly  be  referred.  The  account  clearly  in- 
volves, however,  that  which  is  the  dominant 
thought  of  the  book,  vengeance  without  mercy. 

20.  In  the  progressive  development  of  the  pre- 
sent drama,  the  time  had  now  come  for  the 
avenging  of  the  wrongs  inflicted  by  Nero,  "the 
beast"  (Rev.  xv.,  2),  on  the  martyred  saints. 
The  "seven  angels  having  the  seven  last  plagues, " 
which  seem  to  be  the  perfected  or  completed 
expression  of  "the  wrath  of  God,"  make  their 
appearance  (verse  i).  Face  to  face  with  the 
impending  retribution,  and  notwithstanding  its 
obvious  horrors,  the  martyred  victims  of  Nero's 


Revelation  211 


brutality  are  again  represented  as  joining  in  a 
holy  song  of  devout  praise  (verses  3,  4).  Here, 
as  in  the  drama  of  the  earlier  chapters,  the  aveng- 
ing spirit  of  ancient  Judaism — the  blood-revenge 
of  the  desert — rims  riotous  in  ecstatic  anticipation 
of  the  awful  vengeance  that  was  in  store  for  the 
persecuting  Gentiles.  Even  the  sanctuary  of  the 
divine  presence  could  not,  as  the  vision  represents, 
be  cleared  of  the  visible  and  stifling  indications  of 
His  anger  till  the  angelic  ministers  of  His  wrath 
had  fully  accomplished  their  ghastly  work  (verse 

8). 

If  John  the  Apostle  wrote  all  this,  then  we  must 
conclude  that  when  he  did  so  he  laid  aside  the 
spirit  of  benignant  gentleness  and  love  which 
belongs  to  the  fourth  Gospel  and  to  the  three 
epistles  that  bear  his  name,  and  that  he  resumed 
for  the  time  being  those  belligerent  traits  of  his 
early  manhood  which  gave  him  the  name  of 
Boanerges— "Son  of  Thunder  "—(Mark  iii.,  17), 
and  which  once  prompted  him  to  invoke  fire  from 
heaven  to  avenge  a  personal  discourtesy  (Luke  ix. , 
54).  While  his  authorship  cannot  be  authorita- 
tively denied,  we  can  safely  say  that  the  spirit  and 
tone  of  the  passages  we  are  now  considering  do  not 
tally  with  what  we  otherwise  know  of  him  in  his 
later  years. 

21.  The  earnest  longing  of  the  martyrs  for 
revenge  must  have  been  fully  satisfied  if  the  vision 
of  the  seven  bowls  (Rev.  xvi.)  possesses  a  historical 
significance  at   all   commensurate   with   what  is 


212  Revelation 


delineated.  In  fact,  we  may  reasonably  conclude 
that  such  was  the  verdict,  for  along  with  the  por- 
tentous convulsions  of  nature  which  followed  the 
pouring  of  the  seventh  and  last  bowl,  what  hap- 
pened to  imperial  Rome  is  thus  recorded  (verse  19) : 

"Babylon  the  great  was  remembered  in  the 
sight  of  God,  to  give  unto  her  the  cup  of  the  wine 
of  the  fierceness  of  His  wrath. " 

Nero's  martyrs  were  avenged  at  last. 

But  not  even  yet,  in  this  wonderful  drama,  had 
the  writer  given  what  he  regarded  as  an  adequate 
expression  of  the  old  Christian  hatred  of  Rome. 
He  gives  it,  however,  in  chapters  xvii.,  xviii. 
Nowhere  in  literature,  ancient  or  modern,  so  far 
as  my  reading  has  gone,  is  there  any  sketch  or 
setting  forth  of  malignant  but  ecstatic  antipathy 
such  as  is  embodied  in  the  vision  of  these  two 
chapters.  No  dramatic  writer  of  any  age  or  race 
has  come  within  a  thousand  miles  of  it  in  respect 
of  the  vigor  of  thought,  sublimity  of  feeling,  and 
beauty  of  expression  with  which  the  writer  has 
here  set  forth,  in  a  single  picture,  the  acme  or 
perfection  of  rancorous  hate,  and  self-satisfied 
joy.  In  this  respect  it  stands  easily  first  in  the 
annals  of  literature,  whether  sacred  or  profane. 

22.  Responsive  to  the  scene  of  this  dire  retri- 
bution, the  powers  of  heaven,  with  the  saints  and 
martyrs,  break  out  in  a  responsive  litany  of 
triumphant  rejoicing,  united  with  devout  adora- 
tion and  praise  to  Him  who  had  done  it  all  (Rev. 
xix.,  i-io).     The  reader  will  look  in  vain  here  or 


Revelation  213 


elsewhere  in  the  book  for  the  expression,  or  even  a 
hint,  of  sorrow  or  regret. 

Evidently  it  was  not  written  for  any  such  pur- 
pose. A  spirit  of  unrelenting  and  unforgiving 
revenge,  either  anticipated  or  executed  or  in 
progress  of  execution,  finds  expression  in  every 
chapter  and  on  every  page.  No  tinge  of  remorse 
anywhere  appears.  If  any  mercy  whatever,  or  any 
mitigation  of  suffering,  was  felt  or  shown  either  to 
the  ignorant  or  to  the  innocent,  the  writer  failed 
to  put  it  down.  This  fact  may,  however,  justify 
the  suggestion  that  (contrary  to  the  view  generally 
entertained)  the  writer  was  not  writing  history, 
knew  he  was  not,  and  consequently  did  not  try  to 
do  so,  but  rather  was  writing  the  earliest  Christian 
tragedy  now  extant,  and  one  which  might  fairly 
be  entitled  ''The  Tragedy  of  Persecution."  And 
if  it  were  so  entitled,  I  think  that  our  Biblical 
scholars  would  have  much  less  trouble  in  getting 
at  a  correct  imderstanding  of  its  meaning. 

2S'  One  other  thought  may  here  be  in  place. 
The  prevalent  tone  of  the  book  indicates  clearly 
the  vigor  and  viriHty  of  the  church  at  the  close  of 
the  apostolic  era.  Even  amid  the  intensest  horrors 
of  persecution,  there  is  no  hint  or  suggestion  of  a 
"let-down"  in  respect  of  any  of  its  claims,  pre- 
tensions, or  hopes.  As  between  the  church  and 
the  empire,  it  was  a  fight  even  imto  death.  There 
was  no  flagging  in  its  energies;  no  weakening  in 
respect  of  their  use;  no  cowardice  on  the  part  of 
either  its  leaders  or  their  followers  in  the  day  of 


214  Revelation 


battle.  In  maintaining  its  right  to  live  and 
develop  along  its  own  chosen  Hne  of  growth,  the 
church,  as  here  sketched,  was  fierce,  vigorous,  and 
unrelenting.  The  determined  spirit  of  Richelieu 
dwelt  in  it,  for  it  knew  *'no  such  word  as  fail." 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  gentle  spirit  of  the 
Prince  of  Peace  was  then  temporarily  absent,  we 
may  safely  conclude  that  the  extreme  exigencies 
of  the  times  demanded  it.  It  was  then  a  church 
militant  in  every  sense  of  the  word ;  and  in  respect 
of  this  particular  contest,  it  became  the  church 
triumphant.  Living  now  in  the  **  piping  times  of 
peace, "  it  is  not  for  us  to  say  aught  in  disparage- 
ment of  the  writer  or  of  the  record,  for  in  the 
calamitous  experiences  of  that  era  of  persecution, 
the  divinely  appointed  rule  was  established  that 
*'the  blood  of  the  martyrs  is  the  seed  of  the 
church." 


A  FUTURE  LIFE 

So  far  as  existing  records  go,  the  ideas  enter- 
tained by  the  Hebrew  people  relative  to  a  future 
state,  say  up  to  about  the  time  of  the  Babylonian 
captivity  (sixth  century  B.C.),  were  exceedingly 
crude.  The  spirits  of  the  dead,  good  and  bad 
alike  and  together,  were  believed  to  continue  a 
semi-conscious,  comatose,  or  sleepy  sort  of  an 
existence,  in  a  pit  or  cave  somewhere  down  in  the 
bowels  of  the  earth,  then  known  as  Sheol.  It  was 
from  such  a  sleep  and  such  a  cave  that  the  prophet 
Samuel  was  ''disquieted,"  with  some  apparent 
irritabiHty  on  his  part,  when  he  came  "up  out  of 
the  earth"  under  the  divination  of  the  witch  of 
Endor  (I.  Sam.  xxviii.,  13,  15).  It  was  while  in 
such  a  cave  that  the  spirits  of  the  deceased  kings 
and  heroes  of  history  were  aroused  to  give  a 
derisive  welcome  to  the  newly-arrived  ghost  of  the 
mighty  Nebuchadnezzar  of  imperial  Babylon 
(Isa.  xiv.,  9-17).  Life  in  Sheol  contained  nothing 
pleasant  to  look  forward  to;  nor  in  the  writings  of 
that  period  do  we  find  any  mention  of  a  way  of 
escape  (Ps.  vi.,  5;  Eccl.  ix.,  10).  A  dull,  inactive, 
and  apparently  unending  existence  in  the  cave  or 
pit,  Sheol,  was  the  best  that  the  people  of  ancient 

215 


2i6  A  Future  Life 

Israel  then  held  in  expectation.  If  Psalms  xvi., 
10  be  a  product  of  David's  pen  (which  is  doubtful), 
we  must  conclude  that  his  prophetic  eye  took  in 
more  than  elsewhere  appears  as  the  belief  of  his 
day. 

But  in  the  course  of  time  (seventh  century  B.C.) 
it  was  made  known,  probably  by  revelation,  that 
for  the  sons  of  Israel  (to  no  others  is  it  promised) 
there  would  be  a  deliverance  from  the  dark  cave  of 
Sheol ;  and  this  is  the  first  hint  we  have  of  a  separa- 
tion in  a  future  state  between  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked.  Our  record  herein  is  found  in  Hosea 
xiii.,  14.  However,  as  nothing  to  the  like  effect 
is  found  in  the  authentic  writings  of  Hosea's 
contemporaries,  Isaiah  and  Amos,  it  seems  fair 
to  infer  that  this  new  revelation  did  not  at  once 
become  a  part  of  the  faith  of  the  Jewish  church. 
But  it  is  possible  that  the  germinal  seed  of  divine 
truth  thus  planted  by  Hosea  gradually  grew  in 
the  minds  of  the  leaders  of  religious  thought  until, 
about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  later,  it  blos- 
somed into  the  incipient  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection from  the  dead,  as  first  appears  in  Ezekiel 
XXX vii.,  12,  13.  But  even  then,  only  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jehovah's  people,  the  loyal  sons  of  Israel, 
is  promised.  Apparently  the  final  destiny  of  the 
remaining  dead  did  not  come  within  the  scope  of 
the  prophet's  vision.  Or,  possibly,  in  his  view, 
Sheol  was  good  enough  for  them,  and  he  let  them 
stay  there.  The  Jews  never  had  any  particular 
love  for  the  Gentiles,  either  dead  or  alive. 


A  Future  Life  217 


In  stating  my  views  as  above,  I  have  not  over- 
looked Isaiah  xxvi.,  14,  19,  but  I  think  it  quite 
clear  that  this  old  "song"  (verse  i)  belongs  to  a 
much  later  period,  say  to  the  time  when  the  des- 
truction of  Jerusalem  was  close  at  hand,  as  indica- 
tedin  chapter  xxiv.  If  I  am  right  in  so  concluding, 
the  writer  of  this  song  was  a  contemporary  of 
Ezekiel,  and  represents  the  same  state  of  religious 
thought. 

As  to  the  successive  steps  in  the  growth  or 
development  of  this  doctrine  of  the  resiurection — 
that  is,  during  the  next  two  hundred  years  or 
thereabout — we  have  no  knowledge  whatever, 
but  at  about  the  end  of  that  period  we  have  the 
record  found  in  Daniel  xii.,  2,  3,  which  probably 
represents  the  high-water  mark  of  Jewish  belief 
on  this  subject  nearly,  if  not  quite,  up  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  era.  Of  this  justly  cele- 
brated passage,  the  following  points  may  profitably 
be  noted: 

1.  It  relates  only  to  the  Jewish  people  (Dan. 
xii.,  i).  No  others  come  within  the  range  or  scope 
of  the  prophet's  vision;  hence  he  gives  us  no  infor- 
mation whatever  as  to  the  final  destiny  of  the 
non-Jewish  dead.  If  they,  or  any  of  them,  were 
to  be  raised,  or  delivered  from  Sheol,  by  resurrec- 
tion or  otherwise,  the  prophet  did  not  know  it. 

2.  Limited  thus,  as  the  vision  was,  to  the 
Jewish  people,  it  is  singular  at  least  that  the 
prophet  uses  the  word  "many"  (verse  2)  and  not 
"all"  in  designating  those  who  "shall  awake." 


2i8  A  Future  Life 

Possibly  as  he  was  speaking  especially  of  some 
"time  of  trouble,  such  as  never  was,"  etc.  (verse 
i),  he  had  in  mind  only  those  who  were  victims  of, 
or  participated  in,  the  events  of  that  ''time." 
Some  of  them  had  been  faithful,  and  for  such  an 
' '  everlasting  life ' '  was  predicted  (verse  3) ,  Others, 
however — in  the  troublous  times  that  characterized 
the  later  history  of  the  Jewish  people  there  were 
many  such — were  faithless  and  disloyal;  and  for 
these  the  prophet  entertained  only  a  feeling  of 
"shame  and  everlasting  contempt"  (verse  2). 

3.  The  separation  of  those  who  "shall  awake" 
into  two  easily  distinguished  classes  is  a  marked 
feature  of  this  prophecy.  Nor  can  any  question 
be  raised  as  to  the  justice  and  reasonableness  of 
the  separation.  We  shall  find  as  we  progress  that 
this  division  and  separation  become  more  pro- 
nounced under  later  revelations. 

4.  If  the  prophet  had  any  special  knowledge 
of  a  heaven  or  a  hell,  the  record  he  made  fails  to 
indicate  it.  The  inference  appears  to  be  unavoid- 
able that  nothing  of  either  was  known  at  that  time. 
Everything  which  he  predicts  might  just  as  well 
belong  to  this  side  of  Jordan  as  to  the  other. 

Little  is  known  as  to  the  growth  of  religious 
thought  for  the  next  three  hundred  years,  or  to 
the  opening  of  the  Christian  era,  but  at  this  latter 
epoch,  the  current  popular  belief  can  be  gathered 
from  our  Gospel  records,  and  largely  from  the 
parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  (Luke  xvi., 
19-31). 


A  Future  Life  219 

1.  The  separation  into  two  classes  was  made 
at  death,  or  immediately  after.  Apparently  each 
disembodied  spirit  naturally  went  its  appointed 
way,  though  Lazarus  was  specially  honored  with 
an  angelic  escort.  For  the  purposes  of  this  division 
and  separation,  a  resurrection  was  not  thought 
to  be  necessary. 

2.  The  distance  apart  of  the  two  classes  in 
their  new  homes,  though  said  to  be  **far, "  was 
not  at  that  time  thought  to  be  so  great  as  in  our 
modem  theology.  Not  only  was  each  within  the 
range  of  vision  of  the  other,  but  they  were  believed 
to  be  so  near  together  that  the  intelligible  trans- 
mission of  human  thought  or  ideas  was  perfectly 
feasible.  In  other  words,  the  nearness  of  the  two 
localities,  and  the  intervening  conditions,  were 
such  that  the  occupants  of  each  could  actually  see 
the  conditions  and  surroundings  of  the  occupants 
of  the  other,  and  intelligible  conversation  between 
them  was  regarded  as  involving  no  matter  of 
difficulty  or  surprise. 

3.  Still  further,  it  was  believed  that  the  occu- 
pants of  the  higher  or  better  place  could,  for 
temporary  purposes,  pass  over  to  and  visit  the 
other. 

This,  however,  was  an  error  which  our  Saviour 
at  once  corrected  by  telling  his  hearers : 

4.  That  between  these  two  localities  there  was 
^'a  great  gulf  fixed, "  of  such  kind  or  extent  that  it 
was  impassable  in  either  direction,  at  least  to  the 
spirits  of  the  dead.     Obviously,  in  His  view  the 


220  A  Future  Life 


occupants  of  the  one  had  no  occasion  to  interest 
themselves  in  the  affairs  of  the  other. 

Thus  the  final  and  complete  separation  of  the 
saved  and  the  lost  was  definitely  made  known  as 
an  element  of  our  religious  faith,  and  as  such,  so 
far  as  we  can  gather  from  existing  records,  it  was 
then  revealed  for  the  first  time. 

5.  It  was  also  then  beHeved  that  the  occupants 
of  this  higher  and  better  world  could  be  sent  on 
beneficent  errands  to,  and  could  hold  intelligible 
and  profitable  intercourse  with,  the  living  inhabi- 
tants of  the  earth.  This  is  nowhere  denied  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  from  Hebrews  i.,  14  I  should 
infer  that  it  was  a  well-recognized  part  of  the  be- 
lief of  the  church  in  the  apostolic  era  of  its  history 
— a  belief  which,  unfortunately,  has  been  lost. 

By  this  time  the  Hebrew  Sheol,  or  Greek  Hades, 
had  come  to  be  regarded  as  the  abode,  not  of  all 
the  dead,  but  only  of  the  reprobate  class,  and  from 
being  a  place  of  semi-oblivion,  it  had  come  to  be 
regarded  as  a  place  of  torment,  and  the  particular 
form  of  torment  was  that  of  fire. 

6.  Heaven  was  thought  of  as  the  home  of  their 
great  progenitor  Abraham.  To  be  received  in  his 
bosom  implied  a  cordial  and  sincere  welcome,  as  to 
*'a  feast  of  fat  things. " 

From  other  sources  we  learn  that  many  of  the 
Jewish  people,  and  probably  a  majority,  believed 
at  that  time  in  a  Jewish  resurrection  at  the  "last 
day"  (John  xi.,  24);  but  it  does  not  appear  that 
they  had  any  well-defined  expectation  of  a  general 


A  Future  Life  221 

resurrection,  such  as  would  include  the  Gentile 
dead.  In  fact,  the  Jews  of  that  day  had  no  interest 
in  the  Gentiles,  either  in  this  world  or  in  the  next. 

There  are  a  few  passages  in  the  Psalms  (as  xvii., 
15;  xlix.,  15,  etc.)  which  indicate  that  the  writer 
thereof  entertained  an  expectation,  or  at  least  a 
hope,  of  deliverance  from  Sheol  for  himself,  and 
presumptively  for  all  the  loyal  and  devout  follow- 
ers of  Jehovah ;  but  as  neither  the  dates  nor  the  au- 
thorship of  these  psalms  can  now  be  determined, 
they  give  us  no  material  aid  in  our  present  in- 
quiry. At  best,  they  indicate  no  advance  over  the 
prophecies  of  Ezekiel  and  Daniel  already  quoted. 

Nor  does  the  justly  celebrated  passage  Job 
xiv.,  13,  14  aid  us  materially,  for  as  our  scholars 
tell  us,  the  original  Hebrew  text  here  is  in  hopeless 
confusion,  nor  do  we  know  the  date  of  its  author- 
ship. On  linguistic  grounds,  our  best  scholars 
are  now  inclined  to  assign  it  to  a  comparatively 
late  date. 

Thus  it  \\dll  be  seen  that  up  to  the  time  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  was  but 
crudely  developed  in  the  Jewish  church.  A  resur- 
rection at  the  last  day  w^as  believed  in,  but  it  was 
hmited  to  the  Jewish  people.  As  to  them,  there 
would  be  a  division  or  separation  of  the  good  from 
the  bad;  the  good  would  be  welcomed  to  Abraham's 
bosom;  the  bad  would  be  tormented  in  Hades. 
As  to  what  they  then  thought  heaven  would  be, 
we  have  no  further  knowledge  of  a  reliable  charac- 
ter, except  such  as  we  may  gather  from  Psalms 


222  A  Future  Life 

xvi.,  10,  II  and  Ixxiii.,  25,  where  life  in  the  presence 
of  Jehovah  was  looked  forward  to  with  evident 
delight.  But  as  to  the  date  of  these,  as  of  the 
other  psalms  referred  to,  we  only  know  that  they 
were  parts  of  the  hymn-book  of  the  Jewish  church 
at  and  for  some  unknown  time  prior  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  era,  but  which  certainly  was 
compiled,  in  its  present  form,  subsequently  to  the 
return  from  the  captivity. 

This  brings  us  to  the  later  and  what  we  may 
regard  as  the  authoritative,  complete,  and  final 
revelation  as  made  by  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

I.  He  put  this  present  life  in  a  new  relationship 
to  the  future  state;  that  is,  heaven  was  not  made 
for  the  sake  of  the  earth,  but  the  earth  was  made 
in  order  that  its  inhabitants  might,  by  and  while 
living  on  the  earth,  be  prepared  or  made  ready  for 
heaven.  This  new  relationship  lies  at  the  basis  of 
much  of  His  teaching,  as,  for  example:  "Lay  up 
for  yourselves  treasures  in  heaven"  (Matt,  vi., 
20);  ''Strive  to  enter  in  by  the  narrow  door" 
(Luke  xiii.,  24);  "Make  to  yourselves  friends  by 
means  of  the  mammon  of  unrighteousness ;  that, 
when  it  shall  fail,  they  may  receive  you  into  the 
eternal  tabernacles"  (Luke  xvi.,  9);  etc.  The 
parable  of  the  talents  (Matt,  xxv.,  14-30)  has 
this  for  its  setting;  so  also  the  laborers  in  the  vine- 
yard (Matt.  XX.,  1-16);  and  the  wedding  garment 
(Matt,  xxii.,  1-14).  The  dominant  tone  and  drift 
of  our  vSaviour's  teachings  point  as  rigidly  and 
unerringly  as  the  finger  of  a  guide-board  in  the 


A  Future  Life  223 

direction  of  another  world.  Accordingly,  as 
taught  by  Him,  life  here  is  to  be  organized  and  run, 
not  with  reference  to  results  thought  by  each 
individual  to  be  most  agreeable  to  himself  just 
here  and  just  now,  but  rather  with  reference  to 
results  that  will  best  fit  and  qualify  him,  or  get 
him  ready,  for  another  life  in  a  future  state — a 
life  which,  lasting  eternally,  will  last  for  an  awfully 
long  time!  Briefly,  a  man  is  to  live  here  in  such  a 
way  as  will  best  prepare  him,  not  merely  to  live 
hereafter,  but  to  live  in  that  hereafter,  in  its 
surroundings,  whatever  they  may  be,  and  to  do 
this  forever.  Such,  clearly,  according  to  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  was  the  divine  purpose  in  our  creation. 
But  that  hereafter — the  future  state — is  of  a 
particular  kind.  Certain  qualities  are  necessary 
for  admission  thereinto,  qualities  specifically 
enimierated  in  Matthew  v.,  3-9.  How  these 
qualities  are  to  be  acquired  is  also  made  known: 
"Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy 
mind"  .  .  .  [and]  ''thy  neighbor  as  thyself" 
(Matt,  xxii.,  37-39)- 

It  is  safe  to  say  that  they  who  sincerely  and 
faithfully  endeavor  to  make  such  a  preparation 
in  this  life,  will  not  be  kept  waiting  long  at  the 
gates  of  the  New  Jerusalem. 

2.  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  however,  tells  us  prac- 
tically nothing  of  what  or  where  heaven  is,  or 
what  His  devout  followers  will  have  to  do  when 
they   get   there.     Perhaps   because   of   our   own 


224  A  Future  Life 

limitations  it  was  impossible  for  Him  to  give  us 
any  realizing  apprehension  of  the  actual  facts. 
Such  seems  to  have  been  Paul's  understanding 
after  he  had  been  there  and  returned,  for  in  sub- 
stance he  says  that,  as  to  what  he  saw,  he  could  not 
tell  us  if  he  would,  and  would  not  if  he  could 
(I.  Cor.  ii.,  9;  II.  Cor.  xii.,  4).  We  only  know  that 
somewhere  between  this  life  and  the  next  from 
these  bodies  of  ours  will  be-  eliminated  the  only 
elements  for  which  they  can  now  be  said  to  exist : 
(i)  the  preservation  of  physical  life  by  use  of  food 
(Rev.  vii.,  16),  and  (2)  sexual  reproduction  (Matt, 
xxii.,  30).  What  our  bodies  will  consist  of  when 
these  elements  are  gone,  we  do  not  know.  But  we 
may  safely  infer  from  the  data  thus  given  that 
heaven  will  be  supremely  adapted  to  the  most 
enjoyable  use  and  exercise  of  such  bodies  as  we 
shall  then  have,  and  of  such  mental  and  spiritual 
excellences  as  in  our  preparations  here  we  may 
have  acquired ;  and  all  this  will  be  in  the  presence 
and  fellowship,  and  with  the  approval  and  benedic- 
tion, of  our  Master  and  King,  and  this  for  a  time 
the  end  of  which  was  not  within  the  range  of 
prophetic  vision.  Further  than  this  our  knowledge 
does  not  go. 

It  is  true  that  the  writer  of  Revelation,  apparent- 
ly in  order  to  stimulate  and  encourage  the  growth 
of  a  high  spiritual  life  among  those  whom  he 
addressed,  endeavored  to  give  them  some  idea 
of  heaven,  but  obviously  the  only  way  he  could  do 
so  was  to  represent  it  as  being  made  up  of  the  best 


A  Future  Life  225 

things  then  known,  or  at  that  time  within  human 
comprehension.  Accordingly,  he  told  them  of 
white  robes,  royal  crowns,  harps,  music,  a  wedding 
feast,  a  temple  more  gorgeous  than  Solomon's, 
lighted  not  by  the  sun,  nor  by  the  holy  oil-lamps 
of  their  earthly  sanctuary,  but  by  the  actual 
presence  of  the  great  Jehovah  himself.  He  told 
of  a  city,  of  a  river  flowing  through  it,  of  shade- 
trees  on  its  banks,  of  golden  streets  and  lofty 
walls  and  pearly  gates,  all  of  which  would  strongly 
appeal  to  the  vivid  imagination  of  the  Semitic 
people. 

Through  a  blind  sort  of  unhealthy  pietism,  a 
large  section  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  has 
drifted,  not  into  regarding  all  this  as  literally  true, 
but  into  reading  it  and  thinking  and  talking  about 
it  as  if  it  were  true ;  so  that  these  ideas  have 
largely  covered  Christian  thought  through  all  the 
intervening  centuries.  But  these,  the  best  elements 
of  the  best  life  and  civilization  of  the  first  century, 
cut  but  a  small  figure  in  comparison  with  the 
Anglo-Saxon  life  and  civilization  of  the  twentieth 
century.  The  things  thus  enumerated — white 
robes,  crowns,  harps,  etc. — appeal  but  feebly 
to  the  average  man  of  the  present  day,  compared 
with  the  comforts  and  luxuries  of  our  present 
civilization.  And  if  these  are  literally  the  best 
things  that  heaven  has  to  offer,  many  of  us  would 
rather  stay  here.  Consequently  the  desire  to  go 
to  heaven  has  lost  much  of  its  intended  power  as  a 
stimulus  to  pure  and  holy  living. 


226  A  Future  Life 


Now,  I  do  not  here  propose  to  set  forth  my 
feeble  surmise  of  some  few  things  that  clearly 
seem  to  me  to  belong  to  the  final  destiny  of  a 
redeemed  humanity;  but  I  feel  safe  in  asking: 
Can  it  be  that  a  heaven  of  harps  and  pearly  gates 
and  golden  streets  constitutes  an  adequate  repay- 
ment or  return  for  the  thousands  of  years  of  labor 
and  toil  and  siiffering  and  agony  of  the  millions 
of  humanity  that  have  gone,  that  are  here,  and  are 
yet  to  come?  for  the  wars  that  have  devastated 
nations?  for  the  earthquakes,  famines,  and  pesti- 
lences that  have  afflicted  our  race?  for  the  wrongs 
and  outrages  of  brutality,  lust,  pride,  passion,  and 
violence?  for  the  miseries  of  the  poor,  the  unfortu- 
nate and  needy?  Yea,  more:  Was  not  the  price 
paid  on  Calvary  a  price  infinitely  too  high,  if  its 
purpose  was  only  to  redeem  our  comparatively 
worthless  humanity  unto  a  life  and  destiny  such  as 
filled  the  narrow  conceptions  of  Jewish  prophecy? 

As  I  look  at  it,  oiu-  chtirch  needs  to  revise  or 
newly  define  its  teachings  about  heaven  and  a 
future  state.  Unless  heaven  is  or  contains  some- 
thing the  attainment  of  which  shall  be  an  adequate 
return  for  its  cost,  the  first  step  in  the  mystery  of 
the  universe  will  not  be  solved.  I  believe,  how- 
ever, that  it  does;  and  I  so  read  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  and  Paul,  both  of  whom  had  been  there, 
and  knew  what  they  were  talking  about. 

If  we  cannot  believe  them,  we  can  believe 
nobody. 

3.     If,   as  above  suggested,   it  be  the  divine 


A  Future  Lite  227 


purpose  that  this  world  should  be  a  place  of  pre- 
paration, or  a  training-school  in  and  by  which  to 
prepare  humanity  for  another  and  a  different 
world  and  for  another  and  different  life,  then 
naturally  we  should  expect,  as  in  substance  is 
promised,  that  those  who  have  been  diligent 
students  in  this  school — and  the  more  diligent  the 
better — would  be  selected  as  the  most  fit  persons 
to  participate  in  and  do  the  work  of  such  other 
life ;  for  they  alone  would  be  qualified.  Only  of 
them  could  it  be  said  that  they  had  conformed  to 
the  purpose  of  their  creation.  The  rest  would 
naturally  be  accounted  failures,  and,  like  all  other 
failures,  their  proper  place  would  be  in  the  moral 
dumping-ground,  or  waste-heap,  or  scrap-pile  of 
the  universe.  So  far  as  our  records  show,  God  has 
no  place  nor  use  for  those  members  of  the  htiman 
family  who  refuse  or  neglect  to  prepare  themselves 
as  prescribed.  Such  preparation,  and  that  only, 
is  what  they  are  here  for. 

Regarding  the  final  destiny  of  such  as  are  failures, 
the  New  Testament  presents  two  or  three  different 
views,  not  necessarily  conflicting,  for  in  the  in- 
tended meaning  of  each,  all  are  imdoubtedly  true. 

(i)  According  to  one  view,  the  members  of 
humanity  last  referred  to  were  culled  out,  rejected, 
and  thrown  away,  and  nothing  further  was  known 
in  reference  to  them.  For  the  purposes  of  the 
narrative,  they  passed  out  of  sight  and  considera- 
tion and  into  oblivion.  For  this  we  have  the 
authority  of  Matthew  viii.,  12;  xiii.,  48;  xxii.,  13; 


228  A    Future  Life 


XXV.,  12,  30;  Mark  viii.,  36,  37;  Luke  xiii.,  6-9,  28; 
xiv.,  24;  xvii.,  34,  35;  etc. 

This  also  is  the  extent  of  Paul's  revelation  on 
this  subject  (I.  Cor.  ix.,  2"])-,  and  perhaps  this  was 
all  that  he  felt  called  upon  to  say,  for  evidently 
in  his  view  this  was  enough. 

(2)  A  further  phase  of  the  subject  is  presented 
in  many  passages  to  the  effect  that  this,  the 
rejected  and  waste  material  of  our  present  moral 
system,  will  be  thrown  into  the  dumping-ground 
of  Gehenna;  for  such  was  the  Jewish  Gehenna,  a 
dumping-ground  for  the  refuse  and  offal  of  the 
city  of  Jerusalem.  Such  a  view  is  all  that  we  can 
fairly  infer  from  such  passages  as  Matthew  v., 
22,  29,  30;  X.,  28;  xviii.,  9;  xxiii.,  15,  33;  Mark  ix., 
43,  45,  47;  Luke  xii.,  5;  etc. 

In  some  of  these  passages  the  awfulness  of  such 
a  fate  is  enhanced  by  a  reference  to  the  fires  of  the 
Jewish  Gehenna,  which  were  always  kept  burning 
for  the  pirrposes  of  sanitation. 

(3)  In  a  series  of  allied  passages  this  morally 
waste  material  is  figuratively  represented  as 
destroyed  or  consumed,  generally  by  fire,  as  in 
Matthew  iii.,  12;  vi.,  30;  vii.,  19;  x.,  28;  xiii.,  30; 
xxi.,  41;  Mark,  xii.,  9;  Luke  xix.,  27;  xx.,  16;  etc. 

In  still  other  passages  the  active  infliction  of  a 
terrible  pimishment  is  set  forth  as  awaiting  those 
who  have  refused  or  neglected  to  make  the  required 
preparation;  though  usually  (but  not  always) 
the  denunciation  of  such  a  punishment  is  associ- 
ated with  some  manifestation  of  active  wickedness. 


A  Future  Life  229 

And  if  the  punishment  so  denounced  was  to  have 
any  end  or  cessation,  the  prophetic  eye  failed  or 
was  unable  to  see  it.  (Matt,  xii.,  32;  xiii.,  41,  42, 
50;  xviii.,   34;  XXV.,  41,  46;  Mark  iii.,  28;  etc.) 

It  is  a  singular  fact  that  Matthew  makes  more 
allusions  to  a  future  state  of  retribution  than  are 
to  be  found  in  all  the  other  Gospels  and  in  the 
epistles.  I  do  not  know  of  any  reason  why  this 
should  be  so. 

The  different  views  above  noted,  as  to  the  final 
destiny  of  the  lost,  might  suggest  the  possibility 
that  in  the  future  world  there  may  be  different 
degrees  of  punishment.  So,  too,  as  respects  the 
final  destiny  of  the  righteous,  it  may  be  possible 
that  some  will  receive  a  higher  reward  than  others. 
The  parable  of  the  ten  pounds  (Luke  xix.,  11-25) 
looks  very  much  that  way;  though  the  parable  of 
the  laborers  in  the  vineyard  (Matt,  xx.,  1-16)  ap- 
pears to  have  an  opposite  meaning.  As  to  both 
these  matters,  I  think  we  must  await  further  light ; 
but  while  doing  so,  we  may  safely  rest  in  the  certain 
conviction  that  the  reward  of  the  righteous  will 
be  more  than  ample,  and  that  the  punishment  of 
the  wicked  will  not  exceed  their  just  deserts. 
"Shall  not  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right?" 

But  I  take  no  more  stock  in  a  hell  of  fire  and 
brimstone  than  I  do  in  a  heaven  of  harps  and 
pearly  gates.  All  such  illustrations  are  purely 
figurative,  though  undoubtedly  they  have  a 
meaning,  and  a  meaning  of  fearful  import  to  us. 
As  the  descriptions  of  heaven  were  made  up  of  the 


230  A  Future  Life 


best  things  that  a  Jew  of  the  first  century  knew 
anything  about,  so  the  New  Testament  descrip- 
tions of  hell  are  made  up  of  the  worst.  The 
Gehenna  of  Jerusalem  was  regarded  as  foul — 
impure  and  corrupt — and  repulsively  so,  up  to  the 
highest  height  of  Jewish  conception.  As  a  recep- 
tacle for  the  city  refuse  and  offal,  it  was  as  impure 
as  a  modern  cesspool  or  an  unflushed  sewer.  The 
festering  worm  of  its  rottenness  made  it  so  abhor- 
rent that  nothing  but  the  ever-during  fires  that 
were  kept  could  mitigate  its  disgusting  vileness. 
Our  modem  civilization  contains  much  that  a 
Jewish  Pharisee  of  the  first  century  would  have 
abominated  as  simply  nasty.  Herein  the  modem 
Jew  is  somewhat  of  a  degenerate;  but  the  high- 
caste  Brahman  of  India  still  retains  the  old  ideas 
and  practices  of  personal  purity.  To  him  many 
things  in  western  civilization  are  unutterably  vile 
and  repulsive.  Until  our  pure  religion  brings  us  up 
to  a  higher  standard  of  personal  and  social  purity, 
even  divine  grace  will  have  uphill  work  in  the 
conversion  of  the  high-caste  Brahmans,  living,  as 
they  do,  in  a  pride  of  purity  which  we  neither 
attain  unto  nor  even  seek  after. 


SATAN 

I  WAS  once  asked  by  a  lay  churchman:  "Do 
you  believe  in  a  personal  Satan?" 

I  replied  that  I  had  no  well-settled  belief  either 
way;  in  short,  that  I  did  not  know. 

In  the  New  Testament,  Satan  is  clearly  and  un- 
doubtedly and  uniformly  referred  to  and  spoken  of 
as  if  he  were  a  person  with  a  distinct  personaHty 
of  his  own,  and  with  all  the  qualities  and 
attributes  of  personality,  including  individuality, 
volition,  and  responsibility.  I  was  brought  up  so  to 
believe,  and  such,  as  I  imderstand  it,  is  the  view 
generally  held  to-day  by  all,  or  practically  all,  the 
orthodox  branches  of  the  Christian  church.  Fur- 
thermore, it  is  held  that  he  is,  and  ever  since  the 
human  race  appeared  on  the  earth  has  been,  the 
open  and  avowed  enemy  of  God  and  man,  hostile 
to  all  the  true  interests  of  both,  and  malignant  and 
unrelenting  in  his  hostility. 

Now,  all  this  may  be  true,  nor  do  I  deny  or 
dispute  it;  but: 

I.  According  to  the  generally  accepted  belief, 
Satan,  as  a  person,  must  possess  all  the  attributes 
of  God  himself  except  two — omnipotence  and  love. 
That  is  to  say,  he  is,  according  to  current  teachings, 

231 


232  Satan 

omnipresent,  for  he  exists  everywhere,  at  least  on 
earth,  and  omniscient,  for  he  knows  everything, 
even  to  the  most  secret  thoughts  of  everybody. 

Besides  this,  he  is  believed  to  possess  and 
exercise  the  same  kind  and  degree  of  capa- 
bility for  entering  into  the  minds  and  hearts  of 
men  as  is  possessed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  third 
person  of  the  Trinity,  and  also  a  greater  power 
over  them.  And  this  takes  in  a  pretty  large  part 
of  what  we  call  omnipotence. 

Now,  the  idea  that  a  personal  being,  thoroughly 
malignant  in  character,  and  who,  at  least  in  his 
relation  to  us,  possesses  more  than  one  half  of  the 
attributes  of  God  himself — that  such  a  being 
should  be  a  constituent  part  of  God's  moral  uni- 
verse, is  something  which  I  cannot  understand. 
It  may  be  true,  but  it  passes  my  comprehension. 

2.  Another  singular  fact :  At  the  time  the  Book 
of  Job  was  written  (though  I  do  not  know  when  it 
was),  and  according  to  the  conception  of  Satan 
that  then  existed,  he  did  not  possess  a  single  one 
of  the  attributes  which  we  now  ascribe  to  him. 
As  sketched  in  Job  (chapters  i.,  ii.),  Satan  was  not 
at  that  time  regarded  as  either  omniscient  or 
omnipotent,  nor  yet  as  omnipresent;  nor  was  he 
a  malignant  being.  In  fact,  he  entertained  no 
special  hostility  toward  God  or  man.  He  came 
into  the  council-chamber  of  Jehovah,  just  as  if  he 
had  a  right  to  be  there,  nor  is  he  represented  as  an 
unwelcome  guest.  He  had  been  sauntering  up  and 
down  the  earth — or  so  he  said — much  as  if  he  had 


Satan  233 

nothing  else  to  do,  or  as  if  that  were  a  pleasant 
way  of  putting  in  the  time.  No  act  or  intent  of 
evil  toward  any  one  is  charged  against  him.  He 
saw  Job,  and  saw  how  upright  and  prosperous  he 
was,  as  well  he  might  be,  for  he  was  the  especial 
object  of  divine  favor.  According  to  this  sketch, 
Satan  was  a  sort  of  cynical  character,  but  not 
malignant.  He  had  no  particular  hostility  toward 
Job,  but  he  thought  that  Job  was  good  simply 
because  it  paid  him  to  be  good. 

Obviously,  the  Satan  of  Job  and  the  Satan  of  the 
New  Testament  have  little,  if  anything,  in  common 
except  the  name. 

3.  There  is  another  fact  which  I  cannot  over- 
look, but  just  how  much  weight  it  should  have  in 
the  argument,  I  do  not  know.  Through  a  vivid- 
ness of  imagination  almost  incomprehensible  to  us 
matter-of-fact  Anglo-Saxons,  the  Hebrew  race  had 
as  one  of  its  characteristics  a  marked  tendency 
to  personify  agencies  and  forces  that  were  not 
understood,  and  to  illustrate  which  we  need  not  go 
outside  the  writings  of  St.  Paid,  for  he  was  much 
given  to  this  practice.  In  I.  Corinthians  xv.,  54, 
55,  death  is  personified  or  spoken  of  as  if  it  were 
a  person,  and  as  perfectly  as  Satan  ever  was. 

Now  I  can  conceive  it  as  possible  (though  I  do 
not  say  it  is  true)  that ''  Satan  "  is,  in  Biblical  usage, 
a  personified  name  for  a  condition  of  things,  and  a 
condition  of  things  that  stands  in  close  relationship 
to  another  condition  of  things  generally  known  as 
''sin,"  the  difference  between  the  two  words,  as 


234  Satan 

thus  regarded,  being  substantial^  this :  that  while 
"sin"  generally  refers  to,  or  has  to  do  objectively 
with,  the  individual  man  as  a  sinner,  the  name 
** Satan"  includes  more  particularly  the  subjective 
agencies  and  forces  that  tend  to  make  him  such. 
And  while  this,  perhaps,  is  not  theologically  exact, 
it  is  near  enough  so  for  my  present  purpose. 

4.  Another  fact :  Neither  the  Hebrew  nor  the 
Greek  language  (nor  the  English,  for  that  matter) 
had  any  one  word  that  expressed,  or  could  be  made 
to  express,  the  two  ideas  of  the  agency,  force,  or 
influence  which,  acting  on  the  man,  makes  him  a 
sinner,  and  the  resultant  effect  in  the  man  and  in 
his  life — the  effect  that  we  call  ''sin. "  To  express 
the  first  of  these  two  ideas,  as  distinguished  from 
the  second,  the  Hebrew  adopted  the  word  "Satan," 
which,  our  scholars  tell  us,  means  an  "adversary"; 
and  the  use  of  this  word  for  the  expression  of  that 
idea  became  so  universal  that  it  was  carried  for- 
ward into  the  New  Testament.  The  latter  of  the 
two  ideas  above  noted  is,  of  course,  sufficiently 
expressed  by  the  word  "sin." 

5.  I  think  it  at  least  reasonably  clear: 

(i)  That  at  some  very  -ancient  but  now  un- 
known period  of  time,  there  existed  in  the  old 
Hebrew  faith  a  belief  in  the  existence  of  a  super- 
human person,  then  known  by  the  name  of 
"Satan."  This  seems  to  be  a  fair  inference 
from  the  Book  of  Job,  as  noted  above. 

(2)  But  as  already  explained  in  the  same 
connection,  this  Satan  of  Job  fell  very  far  short  of 


Satan  235 

being  such  a  Satan  as  the  New  Testament  writers 
had  in  mind. 

(3)  By  the  time  of  the  return  from  the  Baby- 
lonian captivity  (late  in  the  sixth  century  B.C.), 
the  Jewish  satanic  idea  or  conception  had  grown 
or  developed  until  the  name  Satan  stood  for  some 
person  or  personification  who  or  which  was  re- 
garded as  hostile  to  God  and  man — as  appears 
in  Zechariah  (iii.,  i,  2),  a  prophet  of  the  Return. 
The  same  also  appears  at  about  the  same  time  in 
I.  Chronicles  xxi.,  i,  for  it  is  clear  that  the  two 
books  of  Chronicles  were  not  put  into  their  present 
shape  at  a  much  (if  any)  earlier  date,  since  they 
describe  the  beginning  of  the  captivity  (II.  Chron. 
xxxvi.,  17-21). 

Aside  from  these  three  citations  there  is  no  Old 
Testament  mention  of  Satan,  either  as  a  person 
or  as  an  impersonal  power  or  influence  in  the  world. 

(4)  By  the  Jews  in  New  Testament  times, 
Satan  was  imdoubtedly  thought  and  spoken  of  as 
a  person,  but  whether  or  not  correctly  so,  is  a 
question  that  I  cannot  answer.  I  cannot  answer 
it,  because  I  find  that  in  respect  of  ideas  and 
theories  which  were  not  esssential  to  His  work,  our 
Saviour  occasionally  assumed  the  truth  of  things 
that  His  hearers  verily  beHeved,  but  which,  in  the 
fuller  knowledge  of  to-day,  we  know  to  be  imtrue. 
For  example,  when  He  cursed  the  barren  fig-tree 
(Mark  xi.,  12-21),  he  asstimed  what  everybody 
believed,  that  the  tree  had  a  volition  of  its  own, 
and  was  at  least  partly  responsible  for  its  own 


236  Satan 

barrenness.  So  likewise  in  His  works  of  healing 
He  assumed  the  presence  of  demons,  as  was  then 
the  universal  belief,  in  cases  such  as  we  now  recog- 
nize as  paralysis,  epileps}^  or  insanity.  Errors  of 
popular  belief  as  to  matters  not  essential  to  His 
mission,  He  usually  ignored. 

Did  this  idea  that  Satan  was  a  person  come  in 
that  class?  I  do  not  know;  nor,  as  I  look  at  it,  is 
it  a  matter  of  much  consequence  either  way.  As 
respects  any  interest  of  life  here  or  hereafter,  I 
fail  to  see  that  it  makes  any  practical  difference 
whether  we  regard  Satan  as  an  individual  person  or 
as  an  impersonal  power,  agency,  or  influence  which 
acting  on  or  in  us,  makes  for  wickedness.  The 
result  is  identically  the  same  in  either  case  in  so 
far  as  it  affects  us.  The  question  involved  is 
purely  a  question  of  dogma  or  doctrine,  and  is  not 
one  of  practical  righteousness. 

In  saying  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
regarded  Satan  as  a  person,  I  ought  perhaps  to 
make  one  exception.  The  author  of  the  Epistle 
of  James  tells  us  that  the  power  which  in  us  makes 
for  wickedness  is  human  ''lust"  (Jas.  i.,  14,  15). 
The  only  passage  in  which  he  recognizes  this  power 
as  extrahuman  and  personal  is  in  chapter  iv.,  7, 
* '  Resist  the  devil , ' '  etc.  Can  this  mean  that,  in  his 
apprehension,  ''the  devil"  is  but  another  name  for 
' '  lust ' '  ?     Perhaps  so ;  perhaps  not. 

The  belief  in  a  personal  Satan  probably  arose 
out  of  an  effort  to  account  for  the  origin  of  evil 
in  our  world.     At  one  time  Jehovah  was  regarded 


Satan  237 

not  only  as  the  author  of  good,  but  of  evil  as  well, 
the  latter  being  the  expression  of  His  anger  (II. 
Sam.  xxiv.,  i).  The  author  of  Genesis  took  it  to 
be  one  of  a  lower  order  of  animals,  a  serpent.  ^ 
As,  in  course  of  time,  these  theories  were  found  to 
be  untenable  or  unsatisfactory,  some  new  one  had 
to  be  devised.  The  responsibility  for  the  intro- 
duction of  evil  into  our  world  must  be  deposited 
somewhere — it  did  not  make  much  difference 
where.  The  Satan  of  Job  appears  to  have  been  a 
convenient  personage,  and  the  responsibility  was 
accordingly  shoved  onto  him.  His  name  having 
thus  become  associated  with  evil,  the  association 

^  There  is  an  idea,  which  forms  part  of  our  general  religious 
thinking,  that  Satan  in  the  form  of  a  serpent  was  really  the 
tempter  in  Eden.  Perhaps  this  is  so,  but  we  have  no  Scripture 
authority  for  it.  The  writer  of  Genesis  clearly  entertained  no 
such  conception.  As  already  stated,  the  idea  of  Satan  did  not 
then  exist  in  Hebrew  thought;  and,  what  perhaps  is  equally  to 
the  point,  the  curse  pronounced  on  the  tempter,  "upon  thy  belly 
shalt  thou  go,"  etc.  (Gen.  iii.,  14)  appUes  exactly  to  a  serpent, 
and  does  not  apply  to  any  such  personaHty  as  Satan  is  now 
represented  to  be.  Nor  does  any  subsequent  Biblical  writer, 
either  directly  or  by  implication,  associate  Satan  with  the  Edenic 
temptation.  Paul  is  careful  not  to  do  so  (II.  Cor.  xi.,  3).  The 
passage  that  comes  nearest  to  such  association  is  Revelation 
XX.,  2,  where  Satan  is  called  "the  old  serpent,"  but  this  designa- 
tion does  not  identify  him  with  serpents  generally,  nor  with  any 
particular  serpent  of  Biblical  history  (there  are  several  such; 
e.g.f  Genesis  xlix.,  17;  Ex.  iv.,  3;  Num.  xxi.,  9);  and  still  less  does 
it  identify  him  with  the  serpent  of  the  great  temptation.  The 
author  of  the  Book  of  Revelation  should  not  be  charged  with 
meaning  something  he  did  not  say,  especially  in  view  of  his  own 
prohibition  of  a  curse  on  him  who  should  add  anything  to  his 
record  (Rev.  xxii.,  18). 


238  Satan 

grew  and  developed  in  popular  thought  until 
within  a  few  centuries  he  came  to  be  regarded  as 
the  incarnation  of  every  form  of  evil,  even  to  the 
extent  of  a  malignant  hostility  to  everything  that 
was  good. 

Thus  far,  I  have  assumed  that  the  Satan  of  Job 
was  an  actual  personage,  but  if  I  should  ever  come 
to  know  that  he  was  purely  an  imaginary  character, 
it  would  not  surprise  me  in  the  least,  nor  make  a 
particle  of  difference  in  my  religious  faith.  The 
Book  of  Job  is  a  drama  both  in  form  and  in  sub- 
stance, as  would  be  perfectly  obvious  if  it  were 
divided  up  into  acts  and  scenes  and  printed  with 
the  proper  stage  directions.  It  has  been  correctly 
termed  the  "oldest  drama  in  the  world,"  and 
published  in  convenient  form  to  be  read  as  such. 
We  cannot  be  certain  that  its  subordinate  dramatis 
persoTKB  are  other  than  imaginary.  Satan,  as  a 
character  in  the  drama,  comes  in  this  class.  He 
may  be  a  real  personage  or  only  a  made-up  charac- 
ter introduced  for  dramatic  effect.  If  so,  what  is 
said  of  him  proves  nothing  material  to  our  present 
inquiry. 

Perhaps,  after  all,  Satan  is  only  a  name  for 
human  ignorance,  somewhat  as  we  say  the  earth 
is  held  in  its  orbit  by  gravitation ;  but  what  gravi- 
tation is,  nobody  knows. 

The  personification,  under  specific  names,  of 
forces  that  we  do  not  understand  is  not  at  all 
unusual  even  with  ourselves.  We  still  think  and 
talk  of  an  imaginary  ** Nemesis"  who  persistently 


Satan  239 

follows  the  invisible  trail  of  the  criminal  and  cannot 
be  shaken  off.  We  think  and  talk  about  one  of 
the  mysteries  of  our  moral  nature,  which  we  name 
conscience,  calling  it  "dead,"  or  ''active,"  or 
"sensitive,"  just  as  if  it  were  a  person.  Boreas, 
in  our  thought,  personifies  the  violent  tempest,  and 
Neptune  the  chaotic  sea.  Such  illustrations  might 
be  multiplied,  but  these  will  suffice. 
I  close  as  I  began:  "I  don't  know." 
Which  theory  is  right,  is  piurely  a  matter  of 
opinion,  and,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  it  makes  no  prac- 
tical difference  which  theory  any  particular  person 
may  adopt — ^unless  he  be  a  theologian,  and  I  do 
not  belong  in  that  class. 


SIN 


A  CORRECT  understanding  of  what  sin  is  lies 
at  the  basis  of  a  correct  knowledge  of  Christianity ; 
or,  in  other  words,  no  man  knows  what  Christianity 
is — I  mean  the  Christianity  of  the  New  Testament 
— until  he  first  learns  what  sin  is. 

The  definition  of  sin  contained  in  the  Westmin- 
ster Shorter  Catechism  may  be  theologically 
correct,  but  practically  (that  is,  to  the  moral 
consciousness  of  the  generaHty  of  men)  it  is  but 
little  more  than  a  meaningless  collocation  of 
words.     It  runs  thus : 

"Sin  is  a  want  of  conformity  unto  or  transgres- 
sion of  the  laws  of  God."     (Ans.  to  Q.  14.) 

In  my  boyhood  days  children  were  required  to 
memorize  this  definition,  often  before  they  knew 
how  to  read.  And  a  great  many  otherwise  very 
good  men  are  still  urging  and  insisting  that  this 
and  more  than  a  hundred  other  answers  equally 
or  still  more  abstruse,  and  to  the  comprehension 
of  a  child  equally  meaningless,  shall  be  an  essential 
part  of  a  child's  Sunday-school  training. 

It  would  be  much  better,  at  least  from  a  prac- 
tical standpoint,  to  say  that  sin  is,  or  includes, 
anything  and  everything  that  is  morally  wrong 

240 


Sin  241 

or  impure,  morally  injurious,  or  debasing,  or 
defiling ;  just  (for  illustration)  as  a  spatter  of  mud 
or  filth  of  any  kind  will  stain  and  defile  a  man's 
shirt-front,  or  a  woman's  white  skirt,  and  thereby 
render  the  garment  offensive  to  the  sight  and,  un- 
til cleaned,  unfit  for  use.     Sin  is  moral  dirt. 

When  we  leani  to  abhor  sin  as  something  that  is 
morally  defiling,  just  as  we  abhor  a  stained,  mud- 
bespattered,  filthy  garment,  and  for  the  same  reason 
— because  it  is  defiled  and  defiling — we  shall  at 
least  partially  know  and  appreciate  what  Chris- 
tianity is  as  an  agency  for  getting  rid  of  sin. 

We  shall  then  have  a  good  start  on  the  highroad 
to  the  millennium;  for  sin  is  the  source  and  cause 
of  all  and  every  form  of  evil  and  suffering,  physical, 
mental,  and  moral,  to  which  humanity  is  now 
subject,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  it  is  the  only  fact  or 
agency  that  stands  in  the  way  of  the  coming  of  the 
millennium. 

It  is  a  noticeable  fact  that  the  original  meaning 
of  the  Hebrew  word  "Satan"  is  "one  that  stands 
in  the  way,"  hence  an  "adversary."  (I.  Chron. 
xxi.,  I ;  Zech.  iii.,  i :  R.  V.  marginal  translation.) 

Sin,  in  its  moral  aspect,  that  is,  as  something 
morally  defiling,  is  unknown  in  any  heathen 
religion  of  which  I  have  any  knowledge.  Bud- 
dhism, for  example,  knows  nothing  of  sin,  but  seeks 
to  reform  the  world  by  the  avoidance  of  suffering. 
According  to  that  system  of  belief,  suffering  comes 
from  desire:  the  man  who  has  the  fewest  desires 
is  the  happiest;  hence  suppression  of  desire  leads 


242  Sin 

to  happiness.  When  a  man  has  suppressed  or 
destroyed  all  feeling  of  desire,  and  has  done  it  so 
completely  that  he  is  not  conscious  of  wanting  or 
dCwSiring  anything,  his  state  or  condition,  involving 
physical  deadness  and  mental  vacuity  to  every- 
thing external  to  himself,  is  "Nirvana, "  or  heaven 
— a  condition  rather  than  a  place.  Thus  sin  is 
wholly  ignored  in  the  Buddhist  faith. 

Our  so-called  Christian  Science  has  a  theory 
that  (if  I  correctly  understand  it)  makes  sin  to  be 
an  element  of  an  imaginary  or  unreal  develop- 
ment of  the  moral  system  in  which  we  live ;  hence 
sin  is  to  be  ignored  as  imaginary  and  unreal;  so 
that  the  Christian  Scientist,  by  growing  up  or 
training  himself  into  a  knowledge  and  practice 
of  that  only  which  is  essentially  good,  will  leave 
behind  him  that  which  is  imaginary  and  unreal  and 
sinful — somewhat,  perhaps,  as  a  skilled  seaman 
will  (if  he  can)  sail  out  of  a  fog  and  leave  it  behind. 
It  is  then  of  no  further  interest  to  him.  While  he 
was  in  it,  it  obscured  his  vision,  and  furnished  him 
no  sailing-directions.  To  that  extent,  and  for 
that  reason,  it  was  to  him  unreal.  Sin  and  suffer- 
ing and  disease  are,  in  ^Christian  Science,  nothing 
but  a  moral  fog-bank,  to  be  gotten  rid  of  by 
sailing  out  of  it. 

Thus  sin  is  practically  ignored  in  the  Christian 
Science  system  of  belief. 

Chinese  Confucianism,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
directed  primarily  to  the  cultivation  and  practice 
of  a  highly  developed  moral  code  that  is  based  on, 


Sin  243 

or  begins  with,  the  theory  that  evil  and  suffering 
result  from  a  failure  or  neglect  to  maintain  correct 
relations  with  one's  surroundings  or  environment, 
including  the  natural  laws  under  which  we  Hve. 
Consequently  the  maintenance  of  such  correct 
relations  in  all  the  interests  and  ramifications  of 
life,  social,  civil,  and  poHtical,  and  also  as  regards 
the  multitude  of  spirits,  evil  and  good,  that  fill  all 
space,  is  the  means  of  avoiding  evil,  calamity, 
and  suffering  of  every  kind.  Conformity  with  the 
relations  established  by  nature,  and  by  one's  lot 
in  life,  is  the  primary  rule  of  Hving  and  doing. 

Here  also  sin  is  ignored. 

The  Epicurean  philosophers  of  ancient  Greece 
said,  ''Take  life  as  it  comes  and  enjoy  it.'"  The 
Stoics  said,  ''Take  life  as  it  comes  and  endure  it. " 
Neither  system  of  belief  knew  or  taught  anything 
of  sin. 

Judaism  and  Christianity,  and  the  religions  de- 
rived therefrom,  are  the  only  systems,  so  far  as 
my  knowledge  goes,  that  contain  or  embody  any- 
thing like  a  correct  idea  or  conception  of  sin. 

As  we  loathe  a  soiled  garment,  so  we  must  learn 
to  abhor  a  soiled  moral  consciousness  that  tolerates 
or  looks  otherwise  than  with  disapproval  on  any- 
thing that  is  impure  or  savors  of  impurity,  whether 
in  thought,  word,  or  deed. 

To  illustrate :  A  friend  of  mine  once,  in  describ- 
ing a  third  person  about  whom  I  asked,  said,  inter 
alia:  "He  is  so  clean,  and  of  such  delicate  sensibil- 
ity, that  if  an  impure  thought  should  chance  to 


244  Sin 

come  into  his  mind,  I  really  think  it  would  make 
him  blush. " 

Perhaps  the  description  was  overdrawn,  but  it 
illustrates  what  I  mean. 

I  apprehend  that  this  is  the  reason  why  God 
abhors  sin :  not  so  much  because  it  is  a  violation  of 
His  law,  but  rather  because  He  is  himself  so  in- 
effably pure  that  even  the  sight  of  anything  impure 
anywhere  in  His  universe  is  offensive  to  Him ;  and 
the  degree  of  its  offensiveness  is  perhaps  measured 
by  the  infinite  perfection  of  His  purity. 

Now,  while  there  can  be  no  possible  objection 
to  the  vigorous  efforts  made  by  our  clergy  to 
convince  their  congregations  of  the  sinfulness  of 
sin,  I  think  the  end  to  be  accomplished — the 
destruction  of  sin — will  sooner  be  attained  by  the 
training  up  of  men  and  women  to  a  standard  of 
purity  of  thought  and  life,  so  that  anything  impure 
will  be  shunned  and  avoided  because  of  its  impurity. 
It  then  becomes  offensive  to  us.  When  sin  ceases 
to  be  pleasant  there  will  be  no  sinners.  As  long 
as  it  is  pleasant,  or  as  long  as  we  think  it  so, 
sermons  on  the  sinfulness  of  sin  will  slide  from  our 
consciences  as  easily  as  dew  from  a  cabbage-leaf, 
and  without  leaving  even  a  wet  spot  behind. 

In  one  aspect  of  the  case — and  not  a  theoretical 
aspect  either — sin  is  the  result  of  moral  disease, 
and  the  best,  and  perhaps  the  only,  way  to  get 
rid  of  it  is  to  cure  the  disease,  and  this  by  improving 
the  moral  status  or  condition  of  the  individual 
sinner.     If  the  tree  be  good,  the  fruit  will  be  good, 


Sin  245 

and  not  otherwise  (Matt,  vii.,  18),  a  fact  too  often 
forgotten  by  those  who  are  seeking  to  reform  the 
world  by  legislation.  People  cannot  be  made  good 
by  act  of  Congress.  Prohibitory  laws  are  utterly 
useless  except  as  they  may  hold  in  restraint  the 
active  and  aggressive  agents  of  wrong-doing.  In 
many  physical  diseases,  as  is  well  understood,  if 
the  vitality  of  the  system  can  be  improved,  or 
sometimes  even  maintained,  the  patient  will  get 
well  of  himself. 

I  have  used  a  filthy  garment  to  illustrate  what 
sin  is,  but  there  is  one  point  of  difference:  the 
garment  can  ordinarily  be  cleansed  so  perfectly  as 
to  obliterate  all  trace  of  the  defilement;  but  a 
defiled  moral  consciousness  can  never,  at  least 
by  any  process  now  known  to  us,  be  restored  to  its 
original  unstained  purity.  Possibly  it  may  be 
done  in  the  next  world,  but  not  in  this.  The 
guilt  incurred  by  each  of  us  on  account  of  having, 
by  a  sinful  life,  worked  his  own  moral  defilement y 
may  be  provided  for  under  oin-  system  of  the 
atonement,  but  the  moral  stains  on  one's  self 
cannot  be  wholly  obliterated — at  least,  not  in  this 
life.  A  sin  committed  produces  something  more 
than  a  stain;  it  leaves  a  scar,  a  moral  deformity. 
The  hymn  ' '  Wash  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than 
snow"  expresses  a  Christian  ideal,  but  for  its 
attainment  we  shall  have  to  wait  till  we  get  to  the 
other  side  of  Jordan. 

A  question  as  to  the  imity  of  the  race  has  been 
much  discussed :  are  all  of  the  present  races  of  the 


246  Sin 

world  descended  from  a  common  pair  of  ancestors? 
Physical  reasons  seem  to  me  to  necessitate  an 
affirmative  answer;  but  even  if  it  were  otherwise, 
the  phenomena  of  sin  indicate  clearly  to  my  mind 
that,  from  a  moral  standpoint  and  in  matters  of 
moral  guilt  and  obligation,  the  race  is  a  unit;  for 
under  like  conditions  all  branches  of  the  race  have 
the  same  tendency  to  sin,  and  such  tendency  runs 
uniformly  in  the  direction  of  the  same  sins;  all 
are  subject  to  the  same  feeling  of  guilt  on  learning 
what  sin  is,  and  all  have  the  same  capacity  for 
repentance  on  being  convicted  of  sin — in  varying 
degrees,  perhaps,  but  the  same  in  kind.  So  far 
as  has  yet  been  ascertained,  the  moral  organization 
of  humanity,  like  its  physical,  was  originally  made 
from  a  single  pattern,  and  its  development, 
whether  upward  for  the  better,  or  downward  for 
the  worse,  lies  along  the  same  lines.  This  being 
so,  we  may  reasonably  conclude  that  the  same 
means  of  salvation  are  equally  suited  to  the  wants 
of  all ;  and  herein  the  facts  as  we  find  them  coincide 
with  and  confirm  the  assurances  of  Holy  Writ. 
Righteousness  versus  sin  is  the  great  question 
of  the  universe.  When  that  reaches  its  final 
solution,  the  other  question  of  salvation  versus 
death  will  disappear. 


THREE  ANCIENT  TRADITIONS 

While  I  think  that  ''Adam  and  Eden,"  as  set 
forth  in  Genesis  i.-iii.,  is  largely  a  made-up  story, 
though  made  up  and  told  for  reasons  that  more 
than  justify  the  telling,  I  also  think  that  next 
following  we  have  a  record  of  three  exceedingly 
ancient  traditions  which  were  preserved  in  the 
Semitic  family  for  untold  centuries,  and  each  of 
which  has  enough  of  a  historical  character  fully 
to  justify  its  place  in  the  record.  These  three 
traditions  involve: 

1.  The  Beginnings  of  Civilization. 

2.  The  Deluge. 

3.  Babel. 

But  before  considering  their  significance,  it  may 
be  well  to  get,  if  we  can,  something  like  an  approxi- 
mate idea  of  their  antiquity. 

The  earliest  Biblical  date  which  can  be  even 
approximately  fixed  is  that  of  the  first  migration 
of  Abraham  (Gen.  xi.,  31),  say  about  2100  B.C., 
though  this  may  include  an  error  of  perhaps  two 
hundred  years.  At  that  time  Semitic  civiHzation 
was  well  established  in  the  Euphrates  valley. 
By  an  ancient  inscription  discovered  some  years 

ago,  we  learn  that  a  Semite  king  of  Babylon,  Sar- 

247 


248  Three  Ancient  Traditions 

gon  the  First,  had  carried  his  conquests  westward 
to  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  somewhere 
about  fifteen  hundred  years  earlier, — say  about 

3500  B.C. 

We  also  learn  from  the  records  foimd  in  the 
ruins  of  the  distant  East  that  a  civilization  some- 
times known  as  Accadian  (Gen.  x.,  10),  and  by 
some  antiquarians  believed  to  be  of  Turanian  or 
Tartar  origin,  prevailed  in  the  Euphrates  valley 
prior  to  its  conquest  by  the  Semites.  The  date,  or 
even  the  probable  date,  of  this  conquest  is  un- 
known. We  can  only  say  that  it  was  probably 
some  considerable  time,  say  several  centuries, 
earlier  than  3500  B.C.  For  our  present  purpose, 
but  only  as  "a  working  theory,"  and  always 
subject  to  correction,  I  will  assume  that  it  was  not 
far  from  about  4000  B.C. 

How  many  centuries  back  of  this  we  must  go 
in  order  to  stand  at  the  very  beginnings  of  Semitic 
civilization,  is  purely  a  matter  of  conjecture;  but 
from  what  we  know  of  the  slow  development  of 
other  nations  that  are  still  hardly  out  of  barbarism, 
a  thousand  years  would  be  a  moderate  estimate. 
Two,  three,  or  even  five  thousand  years  are  more 
probable  periods,  but  this  will  do. 

Bear  in  mind  that  these  traditions  certainly 
antedate  any  historical  record  yet  discovered. 
Many  nations  have  traditions  more  or  less  nearly 
allied  to  these  (of  which  more  presently),  but 
nowhere  do  we  find  any  such  fact  or  event  narrated 
in  the  line  of  history.     In  every  case  the  tradition 


Three  Ancient  Traditions  249 

lies  back  of  any  known  historical  record.  Hence 
it  will  be  understood  that  the  dates  above  given 
are  minimum  dates,  and  are  given  only  as  possible 
stepping-stones  to  further  conclusions. 

The  Book  of  Genesis  was  put  in  its  present  shape, 
we  may  say  with  reasonable  certainty,  not  earlier 
than  the  time  of  Moses,  or  approximately  1500 

B.C. 

Hence  we  must  allow  something  like  thirty-five 
centuries  at  least,  and  perhaps  twice  or  three 
times  that  period,  between  the  dates  of  these  tradi- 
tions and  the  earliest  known  date  to  which  can  be 
assigned  the  making  of  the  oldest  of  our  BibHcal 
records.  Counting  back  from  the  present,  a  Hke 
period  would  take  us  back  nearly  to  the  time  of 
Moses.  In  other  words,  these  traditions  must  be 
at  least  as  much  older  than  Moses  as  Moses  is 
older  than  we  are. 

Let  us  now  consider  these  traditions  in  their 
order : 

I.     The  Beginnings  of  Civilization. 

Briefly  the  record  rims  thus : 

"Jabal  was  the  father  of  such  as  dwell  in  tents 
and  have  cattle." 

'' Jubal  was  the  father  of  all  such  as  handle  the 
harp  and  pipe." 

"Tubal-cain,  the  forger  of  every  cutting  instru- 
ment of  brass  and  iron. "     (Gen.  iv.,  20-22.) 

Obviously,  these  extracts  relate  to  the  founding 
of  the  arts  or  occupations  of  the  herdsman,  the 
musician,  and  the  metal-worker,  or  ironmaster. 


250  Three  Ancient  Traditions 

Agriculture  was  doubtless  much  older,  but  the 
name  of  its  ''patron  saint"  was  lost.  But  even 
down  to  the  time  of  Moses,  the  names  of  the  other 
three  were  still  preserved  in  the  old  traditions  or 
folk-lore  of  the  race ;  and  they  are  recorded  by  the 
sacred  historian  as  the  next  things  in  importance 
after  the  fall  and  the  expulsion  of  Adam  and  Eve 
from  the  garden  of  Eden. 

The  ancient  Aryans  were  never  much  given  to 
herding  or  cattle-raising  on  a  large  scale,  and 
perhaps  this  is  the  reason  why,  as  an  occupation, 
it  has  no  place  in  our  early  traditions ;  nor  have  we 
any  record  or  tradition  of  its  ''father"  or  founder; 
but  as  to  the  other  two,  music  and  metallurgy, 
the  names  of  Pan  and  Vulcan  are  still  held  by  us 
in  nominal  veneration. 

I  should  conjecture  that  cattle-raising  in  that 
early  day  meant  wealth;  that  music  signified 
pleasure;  and  that  metallurgy  stood  for  manu- 
facturing interests  as  related  to  the  attainment 
of  the  ordinary  comforts  and  conveniences  of  life. 
If  so,  the  main  objects  and  aims  of  practical, 
every-day  life  have  not  changed  much  from  the 
times  of  Jabal  and  Jubal  and  Tubal-cain,  down  to 
the  days  of  Armour  and  Wagner  and  Andrew 
Carnegie.  Meat,  music,  and  metals  are  still  the 
sine  qua  non  of  the  life  that  we  live.  Men  change 
as  individuals,  but  generic  man  never  changes. 
We  are  still  working  and  living  on  and  along  the 
same  Hnes  on  which  civiHzation  was  begun  many 
thousand  years  ago,  animated  by  the  same  mo- 


Three  Ancient  Traditions  251 

tives,  working  for  the  same  ends,  and  very  largely 
by  the  same  instnimentalities.  The  various  races 
of  cattle  have  undergone  no  material  change  since 
Jabal,  from  his  tent-door,  counted  his  herds  and 
congratulated  himself  on  their  increasing  numbers ; 
the  stringed  and  wind  instruments  of  to-day  are 
lineal  descendants  (degenerates,  some  of  them)  of 
the  harp  and  pipe  of  Jubal;  and  while  we  have 
no  record  of  the  metal-working  appliances  of  the 
ancient  days  of  Tubal-cain,  the  fundamental 
principles  involved  in  the  earliest  known  furnaces 
of  three  thousand  years  ago  are  still  utilized  in  the 
mills  at  Homestead,  Bessemer,  and  McKeesport. 
Doubtless  through  these,  the  principal  and 
fundamental  elements  of  actual  life  and  prosperity, 
the  foundations  of  .an  extensive  and  well-developed 
civilization  were  laid.  With  a  wealth  of  flocks  and 
herds,  the  luxury  of  music  and  song  and  the 
personal  comforts  that  we  get  through  the  metal- 
worker— with  these  well  developed  into  their 
various  derivative  arts,  as  would  be  inevitable 
after  the  beginnings  were  made,  substantially 
everything  that  is  involved  in  the  highest  develop- 
ment of  the  best  city  life  of  to-day  would  be 
attainable,  and,  as  we  may  reasonably  infer,  was 
actually  attained.  The  only  exceptions  are 
painting,  sculpture,  printing,  and  navigation.  Is 
it  not  said  that  Cain  built  a  city?  And  should  the 
rest  of  the  world,  having  the  means  at  hand,  not 
know  how?  And  must  we  not  prestmie  in  a  city 
life  the  practical  use  and  enjoyment  of  everything 


252  Three  Ancient  Traditions 

then  attainable  that  belongs  to  a  life  of  that  kind? 
In  fact,  we  have  no  historical  record  anywhere  or 
of  any  kind  that  antedates  a  city  as  distinguished 
from  a  country  life.  According  to  this  tradi- 
tion, they  were  developed  together,  side  by  side, 
and  at  a  period  of  time  far  back  of  any  existing 
historical  record. 

That  the  sons  of  Shem  were  proud  of  their  civili- 
zation, just  as  we  are  proud  of  ours,  is  sufficiently 
proven  by  the  tenacity  with  which,  for  so  many 
thousand  years,  they  carried  in  memory  and 
prescribed  by  tradition  a  knowledge  of  its  begin- 
nings. Time  could  not  obliterate  it,  nor  could  the 
deluge  wash  it  out.  This  feeling  of  civic  pride 
permeates  all  Semitic  literature,  and  perhaps 
especially  the  very  ancient  Book  of  Job,  for  its 
author  takes  evident  pleasure  in  his  occasional 
references  to  flocks  and  herdsmen  (Job  xlii.,  12), 
to  music  (Job  xxi.,  11,  12),  and  to  the  work  of  the 
ironmaster  (Job  xxviii). 

Nor  have  I  overlooked  the  fact  that  Jabal  and 
Jubal  and  Tubal-cain  are  represented  as  of  the  line 
of  Cain  and  not  of  Seth,  from  the  latter  of  whom 
the  Jews  derived  their  descent.  Why  this  is  done 
is  not  explained.  Most  probably  it  means  that 
these  elements  of  Semitic  civilization  were  not 
original  with  that  race,  but  were  borrowed  from 
some  neighboring  people — perhaps  somewhat  as 
the  Japanese  have  more  recently  borrowed  from 
the  Western  nations  the  art  of  war.  Such 
borrowing  is  quite  common.     We  ourselves  have 


Three  Ancient  Traditions  253 

borrowed  our  alphabet  from  Tyre  and  Sidon;  our 
mathematics  from  Arabia;  our  Hterature  from 
Greece;  our  law  from  Rome;  our  religion  from 
Jerusalem. 

Obviously,  this  old  tradition  of  the  beginnings  of 
civilization,  though  brief  in  its  record,  includes  a 
very  large  section  of  the  early  history  of  the  remote 
ancestors  of  the  Semitic  races,  and  as  such  is  well 
entitled  to  the  place  it  holds  in  the  Biblical  records, 
and  is  equally  well  entitled  to  acceptance  and 
credence  for  the  knowledge  it  gives  us. 

Possibly  with  further  discoveries  among  the 
ruins  of  the  distant  East  it  may  acquire  a  new  and 
still  larger  meaning.  There  is  no  danger  that  it 
will  ever  be  discredited,  for  it  runs  strictly  along 
the  lines  of  human  experience,  and  is  rigidl}^ 
consonant  with  the  fact  of  history  and  with  what 
might  reasonably  be  expected  to  be  true. 

But  we  really  have  no  data  b}^  which  to  deter- 
mine the  time  of  the  beginnings  of  civilization. 
That  part  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  which  antedates 
the  first  migration  of  Abraham,  though  doubtless 
including  many  matters  of  fact,  can  scarcely  be 
regarded  as  history  in  the  modern  sense  of  the 
word.  Still  less  can  we  look  to  it  for  any  reliable 
information  in  matters  of  chronology,  for  though 
the  Jews  preserved  family  pedigrees  with  great 
care,  they  cared  little  for  the  particular  dates  of 
the  general  events  of  history,  as  the  Book  of  Judges 
sufficiently  proves.  When  man  first  appeared  on 
the  earth  is  not  known  even  approximately.     Our 


254  Three  Ancient  Traditions 


geologists  tell  us  that  the  earth  has  been  in  condi- 
tion for  his  occupancy  for  an  unknown  but  very 
long  period,  variously  estimated  at  from  fifty  to  a 
hundred  thousand  years.  But  when  he  actually 
came  on  the  scene,  nobody  knows.  How  long  he 
lived  in  a  state  of  savagery  and  barbarism  is  just 
as  little  known.  Some,  in  fact  some  millions,  of 
the  race  are  in  that  state  or  condition  yet.  Hence 
the  beginnings  of  civilization,  as  reported  in 
Genesis,  must  be  referred  to  a  very  remote  anti- 
quity, so  remote  that  nothing  whatever  can  be 
said  as  to  its  date. 

2.     The  Deluge. 

It  is  evident  that  at  some  time  or  other  some 
great  disaster  in  the  nature  of  a  tropical  tornado  or 
cyclone  overwhelmed  a  stretch  or  area  of  territory 
then  occupied  by  the  particular  people  from  whom 
the  Hebrew  tribes  claimed  descent;  and  so  over- 
whelming was  the  disaster  that  only  a  single 
family  was  known  to  have  escaped.  Torrents  of 
rain  fell  from  the  clouds,  and  a  tidal  wave  from  the 
sea  swept  inward  over  the  land  (Gen.  vii.,  6),  to 
the  destruction  of  all  animal  life  within  the  sub- 
merged territory  (verse  2i). 

At  this  time,  however  (whenever  it  was), 
civilization  had  so  far  progressed  that  the  arts 
of  ship-building  and  navigation  were  well  known. 
According  to  the  understanding  of  the  writer,  a 
long  period  had  elapsed  since  the  days  of  Jabal, 
Jubal,  and  Tubal-cain,  a  period  variously  esti- 
mated, from  the  chronologies  given,  at  from  one 


Three  Ancient  Traditions  255 

thousand  to  two  thousand  years;  but  really  we 
know  nothing  as  to  its  length.  The  escape  of  the 
single  family  of  Noah  is  attributed  by  the  writer, 
first,  to  the  fact  that  Noah  was  providentially 
warned  of  the  coming  disaster  in  ample  time,  and 
second,  was  sufficiently  versed  in  ship-building 
and  navigation  to  make  the  necessary  provision 
for  safety. 

As  to  the  territory  covered  by  this  disaster,  we 
can  only  infer  that  it  extended  from  a  contiguous 
seacoast  line  to  ''the  mountains  of  Ararat"  (Gen. 
viii.,  4),  which  would  seem  to  mean  the  Euphrates 
valley.  -  The  statement  that  all  the  earth  was  sub- 
merged, and  all  animal  Hfe  destroy^,  is  evidently 
the  statement  of  an  eye-witness.  While  the  ark, 
bearing  Noah  and  his  company,  was  floating  on  the 
waste  of  waters,  there  was  no  land  nor  life  in  sight. 

That  such  a  disaster  should  at  some  time  have 
befallen  the  occupants  of  some  seacoast  territory 
is  nothing  especially  remarkable.  That  at  least 
one  of  the  inhabitants,  particiilarly  if  he  was 
familiar  with  the  ways  of  the  sea,  with  wind  and 
weather,  should  have  had  some  premonitions  of 
the  coming  storm  might  naturally  be  expected. 
If,  so  far  as  he  knew,  when  it  was  all  over,  he  and 
his  family  were  the  sole  survivors,  it  need  excite  no 
wonder  if  he  and  his  descendants  so  narrated  it 
till  it  became  a  fixed  tradition. 

Hence  at  least  the  leading  events  of  the  tradi- 
tion contain  nothing  improbable,  and  are  worthy 
of  credence. 


256  Three  Ancient  Traditions 

As  to  the  time  when  the  deluge  occurred, 
everything  I  have  said  as  to  the  antiquity  of  the 
Jabal  et  al.  tradition  applies  here  also.  Though 
ten  or  twenty  centuries  may  have  intervened, 
both  events  go  so  far  back  into  the  darkness  of 
antiquity  that  no  date  can  be  assigned  to  either. 
And  as  to  the  deluge,  we  have  two  or  three 
additional  facts  that  indicate  an  indeterminate 
antiquity. 

(i)  The  recorded  fact  that  the  ark  finally 
grounded  "upon  the  mountains  of  Ararat"  (Gen. 
viii.,  4)  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  highlands 
of  Armenia  w^ere  once  the  home  of  the  ancestors  of 
the  Semitic  races.  If  so,  then  the  time  of  the 
deluge  must  have  been  long  prior  to  any  period 
of  which  we  have  historical  record;  for,  from  the 
earliest  dawn  of  history,  that  territory  has  been 
occupied  by  tribes  either  of  Aryan  or  Turanian 
origin.  If  the  Semites' ever  held  that  country,  it 
must  have  been  many  thousands  of  years  ago. 

(2)  Traditions  of  a  devastating  deluge  are 
found  among  many  widely  scattered  nations  of 
widely  different  racial  descent.  Every  such  tradi- 
tion antedates  any  and  every  historic  record  of 
every  such  nation. 

(3)  According  to  the  arrangement  of  the  text, 
the  writer  considered  that  the  deluge  antedated 
the  division  (at  Babel)  and  the  consequent  dispersal 
of  at  least  three  of  the  leading  races  of  the  earth — 
the  sons  of  Japheth  (Aryan),  the  sons  of  Shem 
(Semitic),  and  the  sons  of  Ham  (African). 


Three  Ancient  Traditions  257 

The  time  when  that  division  occurred  is  as 
completely  unknown  and  as  indeterminable  as  is 
the  date  of  the  creation  of  man . 

But  this  deluge  tradition  has  a  religious  signi- 
ficance that  gives  it  its  chief  value,  and  but  for 
which  it  is  doubtful  if  any  record  of  it  would  have 
been  made.  Herein  chief  prominence  is  given  not 
to  the  deluge  itself,  but  rather : 

(a)  To  the  divine  agency  which  brought  it 
about ; 

(b)  To  the  reasons  wh}^  Jehovah  did  it;  and 

(c)  To  the  exalted  faith  exercised  by  the  sole 
survivor;  and  to  the  fact  that,  on  account  of  such 
faith,  he  and  his  family  survived. 

The  impressive  inculcation  of  these  three  lessons 
furnished  abundant  reason  for  the  preservation 
of  the  ancient  tradition. 

(a)  The  first  lesson  was  the  supremacy  of 
Jehovah,  which  was  the  fundamental  article  of  the 
monotheistic  faith  of  the  Hebrew  tribes.  But  for 
this,  the  Jewish  religion  would  have  been  merel}?- 
one  of  a  hundred  reHgions,  perhaps  better  than  the 
others,  but  with  no  warrant  for  laying  claim  to 
being  the  only  religion. 

(b)  As  to  the  second  point.  Why  did  Jehovah 
do  it?  the  answer  is,  as  narrated  in  the  record 
(Gen.  vi.,  5-12),  because  the  entire  race  was  wicked, 
overwhelmed  with  wickedness,  saturated  with 
wickedness,  wicked  in  everything  it  did  or  tried 
or  planned  to  do,  wicked  from  the  initial  thought 
through  to  the  final  act.     In  the  conception  of 


258  Three  Ancient  Traditions 

the  writer,  it  was  so  entirely  gone  in  wickedness  as 
to  be  beyond  all  hope  of  redemption. 

Now,  in  Semitic  thought,  when  any  person  or 
people  met  with  disaster  or  calamity,  or  even 
serious  misfortune,  such  a  fact  alone  argued,  and 
argued  conclusively,  that  such  person  or  people 
had  sinned,  and  the  greatness  or  extent  of  the 
calamity  was  a  correct  measure  of  the  greatness  of 
the  sin  (John  ix.,  2). 

Hence  when  the  sacred  writer  wanted  us  to  know 
how  excessively  wicked  humanity  had  got  to  be,  he 
illustrated  and  proved  his  statements  by  telling 
us  what  an  awful  disaster  it  met  with.  In  his 
conception,  the  disaster  proved  the  wickedness  of 
the  victims,  and  its  awfulness  proved  the  depth, 
extent,  and  depravity  of  such  wickedness. 

(c)  The  third  lesson  was  a  lesson  of  faith  and  its 
reward  (Heb.  xi.,  7),  a  lesson  that  humanity  then 
needed  to  learn;  a  lesson  that  God*s  messengers 
have  been  proclaiming  to  wicked  men  during  all 
the  intermediate  ages,  and  a  lesson  that  will 
continue  to  be  taught  to  the  end  of  time. 

Obviously,  the  inculcation  of  these  three  lessons 
was  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  recording  of  this 
old  tradition  of  the  deluge,  and  this,  too,  even  if  the 
tradition  had,  before  the  writer's  time,  grown  by 
repetition  until  it  included  some  details  that  to  us 
seem  improbable.  The  man  who  measures  the 
square  feet  of  floor-surface  in  the  ark  with  reference 
to  the  standing-room  required  for  male  and  female 
representatives  of  the  whole  animal  kingdom,  and 


Three  Ancient  Traditions  259 

regulates  thereby  his  belief  in  divine  revelation, 
has  yet  to  learn  the  meaning  of  this  record.  The 
man  who,  to  the  neglect  of  the  intended  lessons, 
seeks  to  convert  questions  of  ship-building  and 
the  stabling  of  animals  into  articles  of  faith  and 
standards  of  orthodoxy  is  badly  in  need  of  further 
Hght.  At  least  such  is  my  opinion. 
3.     BaheL 

The  third  of  these  old  traditions  is  that  of  Babel. 
Like  the  other  two,  it  goes  back  for  its  origin  to  an 
indeterminate  time.  There  are  no  data  now  exist- 
ing by  which  we  can  compute  even  the  probable 
time  when  the  sons  of  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth 
separated  and  each  went  his  own  way. 

Except  as  I  shall  presently  mention,  I  do  not 
see  that  this  Babel  tradition  has  any  particular 
religious  significance.  But  the  writer  of  Genesis 
was  evidently  an  ethnologist  of  wide  observation 
and  high  attainments;  Genesis  x.,  the  oldest 
ethnological  record  in  existence,  sufficiently  proves 
that.  While  he  believed  in  the  unity  of  mankind, 
he  was  apparently  imable  to  give  any  scientific 
explanation  of  the  great  differences  that  he  ob- 
served between  the  languages  of  different  races.  In 
fact,  except  as  between  cognate  races,  such  differ- 
ences have  not  been  explained  yet.  But  the  writer 
did  the  best  he  could  and  gave  us  an  explanation 
that  doubtless  accorded  with  the  best  science  of 
his  day. 

He  foimd  in  existence,  and  adopted  for  his  use, 
an  old  tradition  to  the  effect  that  the  descendants 


26o  Three  Ancient  Traditions 

of  those  who  survived  the  deluge,  preferring,  as 
many  a  migratory  people  has  done  since,  the 
productiveness  of  a  river- valley  to  the  compara- 
tive sterility  of  a  mountainous  region,  migrated 
from  the  Ararat  uplands,  where  the  deluge  had 
left  them,  back  to  their  old  homes,  to  a  locality 
known  as  Shinar,  down  in  the  low  and  level  plains 
of  the  Euphrates.  To  avoid  future  danger,  they 
set  out  to  build  a  tower  so  high  that  no  tidal- 
wave  could  submerge  it.  Before  it  was  finished, 
they  got  into  a  wrangle  about  something;  verbal 
disagreements  led  to,  or  by  frequent  repetitions 
were  magnified  into,  linguistic  differences;  the 
divergent  parties  became  different  races ;  and  each 
went  a  different  way.  This  explanation  was 
satisfactory  then;  and  while  we  reject  it,  our  best 
scholars  have  found  none  that  is  better. 

The  leading  religious  lesson  that  the  writer  had 
in  mind  was  probably  this:  the  impiousness  and 
foolishness  of  thinking  and  trying  to  outwit  God. 
The  failure  to  do  so  was  a  failure  then ;  nor  has  it 
ever  succeeded  since. 

I  cannot  help  admiring  the  honest  simplicity 
and  ingenuousness  of  the  writer,  and  his  scholarly 
attainments  as  well,  in  thus  working  the  religious 
truths  he  wished  to  teach  into  the  cherished  tradi- 
tions of  his  remote  ancestors.  It  made  pleasant 
reading.  Ponderous  treatises  on  theology  may 
come  and  go,  but  these  stories  of  the  infancy  of 
our  race  will,  like  the  babbling  brook,  "go  on 
forever."     The  world  will  never  tire  of  reading 


Three  Ancient  Traditions  261 

them.  Even  to  the  matiire  mind  they  are  as 
charming  as  ^Esop's  Fables,  Grimm's  Tales,  and 
the  folk-lore  of  Odin  and  Thor;  and  like  them, 
each  has  its  own  moral,  so  obvious  on  its  face  that 
he  who  runs  may  read.  But  in  our  modern  line 
of  thought  we  have  carelessly  or  studiously  neg- 
lected the  moral  of  the  stor^^-  in  order  to  swear  to 
the  literal  truth  of  its  details.  The  latter,  though 
of  great  literary  interest,  are,  in  my  view,  of  little 
consequence  otherwise,  except  as  a  means  of 
bringing  the  moral  of  the  story,  or  its  intended 
religious  teaching,  within  the  easy  apprehension 
of  everybody.  The  man  who  throws  away  the 
oyster,  and  tries  to  masticate  the  shell,  belongs 
to  the  same  class  as  he  who,  forgetting  the  moral, 
makes  the  story  itself  an  essential  article  of  faith. 


SOME   PENALTIES  AND  A  PROMISE 

As  a  result  of  the  introduction  of  sin  into  the 
world,  the  sacred  writer  informs  us,  certain  penal- 
ties were  inflicted  on  the  active  agents  through 
whom  it  was  brought  about — the  serpent,  the  man, 
and  the  woman  (Gen.  iii.,  14-19). 

But  the  singular  fact  is  that  the  penalties 
imposed  contained  nothing  that  was  new  to  the 
organization  of  the  particular  individuals  affected 
thereby.  Thus  nothing  new  was  involved  in  the 
penalty  imposed  on  the  serpent:  "Upon  thy  belly 
shalt  thou  go";  for  the  serpent  had  always  so 
wriggled  its  way  along  from  the  day  of  its  creation. 
"Thorns  and  thistles"  were  not  a  new  infliction, 
for  the  earth  had  produced  them  from  the  early 
days  of  its  fertility.  Of  man  and  his  present 
physical  organization,  we  can  truthfully  say  that 
he  and  it  were  specially  adapted  for  work  and  toil 
and  sweat,  whereby  to  acquire  necessary  susten- 
ance, nor  did  his  penalty  make  him  any  more  so. 
And  as  for  woman,  her  lot  after  sentence  contained 
nothing  of  suffering  beyond  what  her  physical 
condition  already  necessitated.  As  has  been 
frequently  remarked,  the  history  and  condition 
of  the  earth  clearly  indicate  that  it  was  originally 

262 


Some  Penalties  and  a  Promise       263 

designed,  built,  and  equipped,  not  for  an  Edenic 
life,  but  for  the  occupancy  of  just  such  a  sinful 
race  as  now  lives  on  it.  None  of  the  penalties 
above  referred  to  have  subjected  any  of  the  guilty 
parties  to  any  physical  punishment  outside  of 
what  appears  to  have  been,  in  the  orderings  of 
nature,  his,  her,  or  its  previously  appointed  lot. 

Hence,  according  to  Anglo-Saxon  ideas,  none 
of  these  penalties  were  really  in  the  nature  of 
punishments  for  the  particular  offense  in  question. 
But  the  Semitic  peoples  looked  at  these  matters 
very  differently.  In  their  way  of  thinking,  crime 
and  suffering  always  went  together;  or,  rather,  the 
latter  invariably  followed  the  former;  and  they 
seldom  troubled  themselves  with  any  distinction 
between  a  misfortime  that  was  caused  hy  or 
resulted  from  a  crime.  To  them  the  sequence  was 
enough.  If  a  party  was  guilty,  and  soon  after- 
ward met  with  misfortune  of  any  kind,  the  two 
were  associated  together  in  their  line  of  thought, 
and  inseparably  associated,  just  as  if  it  were  a 
clear  case  of  cause  and  effect  (Luke  xiii.,  1-4). 
This  mode  of  thinking  was  of  course  very  illogical, 
but  the  Orientals  as  a  general  rule  are  not  logical 
and  never  were. 

Now,  the  Anglo-Saxons,  being  generally  more 
accustomed  to  logical  habits  of  thought,  are  unable 
to  understand  how  a  penalty  that  does  not  embody, 
or  in  some  way  contain,  some  new  and  objection- 
able experience  to  the  individual,  can  be  to  him  a 
punishment.     If  the  serpent  always  went  on  his 


264       Some  Penalties  and  a  Promise 

belly,  and  could  not  possibly  go  in  any  other  way, 
how  could  it  be  a  punishment  to  him  for  a  new 
offense  to  be  told  that  for  the  future  he  must 
always  go  that  way? 

Still,  we  Anglo-Saxons  retain  even  yet  a  trace 
of  the  same  illogical  style  of  reasoning,  though  we 
partially  conceal  it  by  the  use  of  such  phrases  as 
"the  eternal  fitness  of  things,"  or  ''good  enough 
for  him,"  or  "serves  him  right."  It  is  only  in 
accordance  with  "the  eternal  fitness  of  things" 
that  reptiles  so  obnoxious  and  repulsive  and 
treacherous  and  dangerous  as  are  the  serpents  of 
tropical  countries  should  crawl  on  their  bellies 
to  the  end  of  time.  Such  a  life  is  "good  enough" 
for  a  snake,  and  "serves  him  right"  for  being  a 
snake — and  this  without  regard  to  any  crime  that 
may  be  laid  to  his  charge. 

And  we  sometimes  argue,  or  at  least  think,  the 
same  way  about  some  men.  Our  regrets  are 
coldly  spoken,  or  not  spoken  at  all,  when  we  have 
in  mind  the  misfortimes  of  men  who  are  excessively 
mean,  or  inordinately  selfish,  or  unusually  brutal, 
or  for  any  reason  are  objects  of  hatred  or  contempt. 
Even  though  the  misfortune  may  have  no  relation 
to  the  offensive  characteristics  of  the  man,  still 
we  think,  though  politeness  may  forbid  us  to  say 
it,  "good  enough  for  him, "  or  "serves  him  right. " 

Such,  as  I  apprehend  the  matter,  is  with  us  the 
residual  remnant  of  the  old  Semitic  idea  that  mis- 
fortune or  calamity  necessarily  implies  a  pre- 
existent  crime,  and  that  the  former  is  the  intended 


Some  Penalties  and  a  Promise       265 

punishment  for  the  latter.  So  construed,  I  can 
understand  the  record  of  the  penalties  referred  to. 

But  it  may  be  that  the  writer  of  this  accoimt, 
under  the  form  of  a  parable  of  a  crime  and  its 
penalties,  was  really  intending  to  tell  us  something 
else.  In  what  I  have  said  of  "Adam  and  Eden" 
I  have  explained  that  one  probable  purpose  of  the 
narrative  was  to  tell  us  that  man  was  responsible 
for  the  introduction  of  sin  into  the  world  and  for 
all  the  moral  evil  appertaining  thereto  or  resist- 
ing therefrom.  It  was,  perhaps,  still  further  the 
thought  of  the  writer  that  man  was  also  responsible 
for  the  physical  badness  which  exists  in  himself 
and  in  all  animate  nature — for  its  "thorns  and 
thistles" — ^for  the  physical  necessity  that  compels 
man  to  work  in  order  that  he  may  live,  and  also 
for  the  suffering  incident  to  the  reproduction  of 
life,  and  that  all  this,  in  some  way  which  he  could 
not  explain  (nor  can  we),  came  about  through  or  on 
accoimt  of  his  own  volimtary  sin.  If  such  was  the 
writer's  thought,  we  must  say  of  him  that,  as 
regards  a  knowledge  of  the  moral  system  of  the 
universe  in  respect  of  its  beginnings,  he  knew 
quite  as  much  as  we  know  now,  and  quite  as  much 
as  we  are  likely  to  find  out,  at  least  in  the  present 
life.  The  final  solution  of  this,  and  of  many  like 
questions,  will  probably  belong  to  another  life  in 
another  world. 

I  turn  now  to  the  promise  of  Genesis  ix.,  12-17, 
the  rainbow  and  its  meaning. 

Apparently  the  same  line  of  thought  that  led  to 


266       Some  Penalties  and  a  Promise 

the  association  of  an  old  penalty  with  a  new  crime 
led  also  to  the  association  of  an  old  rainbow  with  a 
new  but  confident  hope  or  expectation,  divinely- 
supported:  that  the  deluge  of  Noah  was  so  excep- 
tional or  extraordinary  an  event  that  its  like 
would  never  occur  again.  Abstractly  the  rainbow 
of  Noah  had  no  more  relation  to  the  deluge-storm 
than  any  other  rainbow  had  to  the  particular 
shower  that  produced  it ;  but  a  new  association  of 
ideas  was  established  by  the  promise.  The  rain- 
bow then  meant  something,  and  probably  for  the 
first  time ;  since  with  the  little  scientific  knowledge 
then  available,  it  is  doubtful  if  anybody  at  that 
time  knew  how  a  rainbow  was  produced.  Prob- 
ably this,  like  other  mysteries  of  nature,  such  as 
the  blowing  of  the  wind  (II.  Sam.  v.,  24),  was 
attributed  directly  to  divine  agency.  But  now 
the  God  to  whom  they  ascribed  it  assured  them 
that  thereafter  it  would  have  a  meaning.  Grate- 
fully and  joyfully  they  accepted  the  assurance 
without  troubling  themselves  as  to  how  or  why. 
It  was  enough  for  them  to  know  that  a  relationship 
of  some  kind  was  divinely  established.  Whether 
it  was  purely  artificial  or  imaginary,  as  distin- 
guished from  causative,  is  a  question  they  never 
stopped  to  consider.  Hence  the  record,  as  they 
understood  and  applied  it,  was  rigidly  true,  and 
highly  instructive  as  well  as  true,  in  that  it  estab- 
lished to  their  satisfaction,  and  gave  them  a 
perpetual  reminder,   that: 

''While    the    earth    remaineth     seedtime    and 


Some  Penalties  and  a  Promise        267 

harvest,  and  cold  and  heat,  and  summer  and  winter, 
and  day  and  night  shall  not  cease"  (Gen.  viii.,  22). 

Nor  is  it  anything  unusual  in  our  own  ways  of 
thinking  to  give  an  old  object  a  new  meaning.  We 
frequently  convert  natural  objects  into  perpetual 
memorials  of  something  else.  Thunder-storms 
were  not  new  in  the  Catskills  when  Henry  Hudson 
first  sailed  up  the  river  that  still  bears  his  name, 
but  the  Rip  Van  Winkle  legend  gave  to  such  a 
storm  a  new  association  in  the  minds  of  men. 
After  Julius  Caesar  theatrically  crossed  the  insig- 
nificant stream  that  formed  one  of  the  boundaries 
of  Rome,  the  new  meaning  then  acquired  by  its 
old  name,  the  Rubicon,  became  permanently 
historic.  But  such  illustrations  are  too  common  to 
require  further  citation. 

I  think  it  highly  probable  that  the  rainbow- 
promise  may  have  had  another  meaning.  As  I 
have  elsewhere  explained,  in  ''Three  Ancient 
Traditions, "  the  deluge  was  thought  to  have  been 
necessitated  by  the  extent  and  depravity  of  human 
wickedness.  But  it  was  now  promised  that  such  a 
necessity  would  never  again  arise;  or,  as  I  would 
conjecture,  it  was  believed  that  by  or  as  a  result 
of  some  new  or  more  efficient  form  or  manifestation 
of  divine  agency,  entering  the  world  and  acting 
in  the  hearts  and  on  the  lives  of  men,  the  race 
would  never  again  reach  such  depths  of  wickedness 
as  to  require  the  employment  of  so  drastic  and 
destructive  a  remedy.  From  the  new  standpoint 
then  occupied,  the  race  was  to  be  and  would  be 


268       Some  Penalties  and  a  Promise 

saved  and  not  again  destroyed.  Perhaps  this 
was  what  the  rainbow  ultimately  meant;  that  is, 
that  the  world  would  thereafter  grow  better 
instead  of  worse.  If  so,  the  promise  has  not  been 
left  wholly  unfulfilled. 

In  the  spirit  in  which  Sancho  Panza  said,  "Bless- 
ings on  him  who  invented  sleep, "  I  would  devoutly 
say:  "Blest  be  the  man  who  invented  the  rain- 
bow," for  it  contains  the  initiatory  promise  and 
pledge  of  the  millennium. 


THE  STORY  OF  THE  CREATION 

In  Adam  and  Eden  (Vol.  iii.,  p.  i)  I  have  stated 
my  belief  that  the  account  of  the  temptation  and 
the  fall  was  not  historical,  and  was  not  intended 
to  be,  but  rather  was  allegorical,  and  this  for 
sufificient  reasons  and  good  purposes  as  there 
stated. 

In  "Three  Ancient  Traditions"  (i)  the  Jabal, 
Jubal  and  Tubal-cain  story,  (2)  the  deluge 
accoimt,  and  (3)  the  Babel  episode,  I  have  recog- 
nized as  to  each  a  historical  substratum  or  basis, 
but  have  pointed  out  how  exceedingly  ancient 
must  be  the  facts  or  occurrences  from  which  each 
of  these  traditions  took  its  origin,  really  going 
back  of  and  far  beyond  any  historical  record  or 
knowledge  now  existent  anywhere — that  is  to  say, 
over  and  above  what  is  here  recorded. 

Of  the  story  of  the  creation,  I  think  it  quite 
clear:  (i)  that  it  is  not  allegorical,  but  is  a  genuine 
record  of  a  divine  revelation;  (2)  that,  viewed 
solely  from  a  scientific  standpoint,  it  so  far  con- 
forms with  the  best  science  of  the  present  day  that 
it  is  entitled  to  rank  as  a  true  and  correct,  though 
exceedingly  brief,  sketch  of  the  work  of  creation; 
(3)  that,  in  point  of  antiquity,  this  revelation  goes 

269 


270  The  Story  of  the  Creation 

back  and  is  lost  in  the  same  historical  darkness  as 
the  "Three  Ancient  Traditions"  above  referred  to, 
and  possibly  was  much  earlier  than  any  of  them. 

We  may  be  reasonably  sure  that  it  came  origin- 
ally by  divine  revelation,  because,  so  far  as  we 
know  or  can  fairly  surmise,  there  was  no  other  way 
by  which  it  could  have  become  known  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth,  for  it  was  evidently 
impossible  that  human  eyes  could  have  been  there 
to  see  and  make  record  of  the  work  as  it  originated 
and  progressed.  Our  best  scientists  tell  us  that 
through  the  millions  of  years  prior  to  about  the 
time  designated  as  ''the  fifth  day"  the  earth  was 
not  in  condition  for  the  occupancy  of  man;  in 
fact,  until  about  that  time  man,  with  his  present 
physical  organization,  could  not  have  lived  on  its 
surface.  Hence,  whatever  actual  knowledge  the 
race  may  have  acquired,  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
earth  and  of  all  things  that  are  therein,  must  have 
come  from  some  superhuman  source  and  by  what 
we  call  revelation. 

Nor  could  this  story  have  been  made  up,  since, 
at  the  latest  date  to  which  the  writing  of  Genesis 
can  possibly  be  assigned,  the  science  involved  in 
the  orderly  and  successive  steps  of  this  narrative 
did  not  exist;  for  modem  science  is  exceedingly 
modem.  I  can  readily  see  that  an  attentive  ob- 
server of  a  remote  antiquity  might  have  surmised, 
and  perhaps  might  have  concluded,  that  animal  life 
was  impossible  until  the  earth  was  well  stocked  with 
vegetation;  that  fish  could  not  have  lived  until 


The  Story  of  the  Creation  271 

they  had  water  to  swim  in;  and  that  vegetation 
could  not  have  been  looked  for  until  a  fertile  soil 
was  provided;  but  for  any  reasonable  theory  as 
to  how  there  came  to  be  a  soil,  and  how  it  came  to 
be  fertile,  and  where  the  ocean  rame  from,  the 
data  though  observable,  as  we  now  know,  were  not 
apprehended  or  understood  imtil  very  recently. 
There  was  not  enough  known  at  that  early  date  to 
justify  even  an  intelligent  guess  as  to  the  origin 
of  things,  either  animate  or  inanimate.  The 
monstrous  guesses  found  in  the  cosmogonies  of 
unciviHzed  nations  furnish  almost  conclusive 
proof  that  the  Genesis  story  of  the  creation  is 
something  a  good  deal  higher  than  guesswork. 
So  accurate  is  it  that  the  best  science  of  the  world 
to-day  cannot  in  the  same  number  of  words  tell 
it  any  better. 

Certainly  the  first  man  who  put  that  story  in 
cognizable  form,  either  oral  or  written,  not  only 
knew  what  he  was  talking  about,  but  he  knew  it 
from  some  source  external  to  himself.  He  had  no 
science  to  guide  him  in  shaping  it;  he  could  not 
have  guessed  it;  he  may  have  dreamed  it,  and  I 
think  it  highly  probable  that  by  means  of  a  dream 
or  series  of  dreams,  it  was  first  made  known;  but 
there  was  a  divine  intelligence  present  to  shape 
and  develop  the  dream.  Human  guesses  and 
human  dreams,  unless  guided  and  controlled  by 
some  power  ''whose  dwelling  is  not  with  flesh," 
do  not  follow  along  the  undiscovered  and  unknown 
lines  of  exact  science. 


2^2  The  Story  of  the  Creation 

As  to  the  antiquity  of  this  story,  or  the  time 
when  it  was  first  revealed,  but  little  can  be  said. 
Our  oldest  record  of  it  is  in  Hebrew;  but  as  com- 
pared with  the  antiquity  of  the  race,  Hebrew  is 
probably  a  modern  language.  Our  scholars  tell 
us  that  it  was  not  the  original  speech  of  Abraham, 
but  was  a  local  dialect  of  one  or  more  of  the 
Canaanite  tribes,  and  was  adopted  by  the  de- 
scendants of  Abraham  at  some  date  now  unknown, 
perhaps  prior  to  the  time  of  Moses,  perhaps  later. 
From  the  dug-up  records  of  the  remote  East,  we 
find  that  in  the  folk-lore  or  traditions  of  the  Baby- 
lonian Chaldeans,  long  before  the  time  of  Abraham, 
there  was  extant  a  story  of  the  creation  which, 
though  pervaded  and  loaded  down  with  the  puerili- 
ties of  polytheism,  still  has  many  points  of  resem- 
blance to  the  narrative  in  Genesis,  and  is  so 
strikingly  similar  as  to  indicate  that  the  two  had  a 
probably  common  origin.  In  other  words,  both 
the  Genesis  story  and  the  Chaldean  story  go  back 
to  a  revelation  that  antedates  all  existing  records 
and  all  historical  periods  of  which  we  have  any 
knowledge. 

From  all  of  which  I  think  we  may  reasonably 
surmise:  (i)  that  such  a  revelation  was  made  in 
the  very  early  history  of  the  race,  and  to  some 
branch  of  it  now  unknown,  but  a  possible  tradition 
of  which  is  preserved  in  the  Enoch  story  of  Genesis 
v.,  21-24;  (2)  that  as  the  race  degenerated  morally, 
as  it  certainly  did,  the  revelation  referred  to  be- 
came corrupted  and  loaded  down  with  heathenish 


The  Story  of  the  Creation  273 

variations  and  additions  and  in  that  degenerate 
form  became  a  part  of  the  traditional  folk-lore 
of  the  scholars  of  ancient  Chaldea ;  (3)  that  in  this 
form  it  passed,  along  with  other  learning  of  the 
Chaldean  schools,  into  the  civilization  of  Western 
Asia,  probably  at  the  time  of  the  early  Babylonian 
supremacy,  which,  from  other  records,  we  know 
to  have  been  extended  westward  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean many  centuries  prior  to  Abraham ;  and  (4) 
that  the  writer  of  the  Genesis  narrative,  under  the 
guidance  of  a  new  inspiration,  eliminated  from 
that  tradition  its  heathenish,  puerile,  and  poly- 
theistic errors,  and  practically  restored  the  revela- 
tion to  its  original,  genuine  form.  But  who  the 
writer  was  we  do  not  know,  nor  is  it  important 
that  we  should.  The  record  shows  that  he  was  a 
master-workman  in  that  particular  field.  It  may 
have  been  Moses,  though  I  doubt  it ;  but  I  do  not 
care  to  dissent  from  those  who  so  believe.  Who- 
ever wrote  it,  it  comes  to  us  backed  up  by  divine 
authority,  expressed,  first,  on  the  face  and  in  the 
substance  of  the  record  itself,  and  second,  in  its 
practical  consonance  with  and  confirmation  by 
the  ascertained  facts  of  science.  That  story  and 
the  story  of  the  earth  itself,  both  have  the  same 
divine  origin. 

There  is  one  fact  revealed  in  this  Genesis  account 
as  to  which  science  is  wholly  silent,  the  fact  that 
all  life,  motion,  and  matter  owe  their  origin  to  the 
creative  act  of  an  extramimdane  power  or  agency, 
or  perhaps  to  a  series  of  such  acts.     Science  cannot 


274  The  Story  of  the  Creation 

and  does  not  pretend  to  account  for  the  origin  of 
anything  except  as  it  may  have  come  derivatively 
from  something  different  which  previously  existed. 
How  the  first  life,  or  the  first  movement  of  anything, 
or  the  first  form  of  matter  came  into  being — ^in 
regard  to  these  beginnings,  science  is  totally  and 
profoundly  ignorant.  Self -creation  is  more  abhor- 
rent to  genuine  science,  and  is  more  inconceivable 
and  incredible,  than  an  extramundane  Creator. 
As  a  working  theory,  and,  so  far  as  we  now  know, 
a  possibly  true  theory,  science  many  years  ago 
worked  its  way  back  to  something  which  it  called 
an  "atom,"  but  so  infinitesimally  small  that  no 
microscope  can  isolate  it,  and  consequently  it  is 
cognizable  only  by  the  imagination.  Proceeding 
from  this  point,  science  has  (or  thinks  it  has)  more 
recently  resolved  its  infinitesimal  atoms  into 
swirling  vortexes,  each  made  up  of  myriads  of 
* 'electrons"  or  "corpuscles,"  but  about  which 
it  knows  nothing  except  that  they,  as  conceived  of, 
represent  some  form  of  movement  or  force,  and 
possibly  constitute  the  first  form  of  matter. 
There  science  stops.  It  can  go  no  further.  As  to 
the  ultimate  origin  of  movement  or  force,  science 
does  not  tell  us  anything,  but  Genesis  does:  "The 
Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters" 
(Gen.  i.,  2) ;  and  motion  means  force,  "And  God 
said.  Let  there  be  light,  and  light  was"  (verse  3) ; 
and  next  after  motion,  light  was  the  first  form  or 
manifestation  of  force  cognizable  to  the  eye.  The 
primordial  relationship  of  matter  and  force  is  not 


The  Story  of  the  Creation  275 

yet  scientifically  known.     Genesis  tells  us  all  we 
know  on  that  subject. 

Science  may  be  correct  when  it  says,  as  it  does 
through  a  certain  school  of  its  advanced  votaries, 
that,  given  matter  and  force  to  begin  with,  they 
could,  under  the  action  of  known  laws,  evolve  the 
universe.  But  of  the  origin  of  matter,  the  origin  of 
force,  and  the  origin  of  the  laws  that  pervade  and 
dominate  both  matter  and  force,  we  have  no 
knowledge  except  what  we  can  gather  from  the 
account  in  Genesis.     If  this  account  be  not  true, 

"  .     .     .     this  I  dare  boldly  tell, 
'T  is  so  like  truth,  't  will  serve  our  turn  as  well." 

Did  Moses  write  this  story  along  with  the  intro- 
ductory chapters  of  Genesis?  I  am  unable  to 
disprove  the  theory  that  he  did,  but  I  very  much 
doubt  it.  According  to  the  record  of  his  Hfe,  he 
had  no  particular  interest  in  such  matters  during 
the  first  third  of  it,  when,  as  a  prince  of  Egypt,  he 
was  a  member  of  the  court  of  Pharaoh;  nor  during 
the  second  third  of  it,  when,  as  a  fugitive  from  the 
wrath  of  the  King,  he  filled  the  position  of  a  shep- 
herd in  the  distant  land  of  Midian.  The  last 
third  of  his  Hfe,  forty  years  in  round  numbers,  was 
occupied  with  ''matters  and  things,"  and  was 
spent  amid  surroundings,  all  of  which  were  the 
reverse  of  favorable  to  high-class  authorship. 
He  had  twelve  unruly  and  discordant  tribes  to 
manage;  tribes  that  were  jealous  of  each  other, 


276  The  Story  of  the  Creation 

and,  except  his  own  tribe  of  Levi,  likewise  jealous 
of  him;  tribes  composed  of  people  just  out  of 
serfdom.  As  Egyptian  serfs  they  had  been  given 
to  the  usages  and  practices  of  Egyptian  idolatry, 
and  though  they  generally  yielded  to  Moses  the 
authority  of  nominal  leadership,  they  did  not 
hesitate  to  rebel  whenever  things  did  not  go  to 
suit  their  wishes  or  whims.  Under  such  conditions, 
and  for  such  a  people,  Moses  had  to  devise  and 
inaugurate  a  system  of  civil  government  or  rule 
and  get  them  to  obey  it;  also  a  system  of  religion 
that  was  practically  new,  and  because  it  was  new, 
was  accepted  with  reluctance;  and  also  a  military 
organization  for  protection  against  a  hostile  environ- 
ment, and  for  the  conquest  which  he  and  they 
looked  forward  to.  Nor  was  their  manner  of  life  at 
all  favorable  for  either  a  high  religious  or  a  high 
literary  development.  During  these  forty  years 
they  lived  a  nomadic  pastoral  life,  a  good  part  of 
the  time  in  the  wide  region  of  country  around 
Kadesh-Barnea.  The  settled  conditions  of  civili- 
zation were  wanting.  Pasturage  and  water  for 
flocks  and  herds  were  the  first  necessity,  in  a  region 
where,  at  certain  times  of  the  year,  both  were 
scarce.  Conditions  that  forbid  a  settled  home 
and  compel  a  continuous  struggle  for  existence  are 
not  favorable  for  the  development  of  a  revelation, 
nor  for  the  preparation  of  a  history  of  a  remote 
religious  antiquity  which  had  no  contemporary 
interest  or  importance. 

But  notwithstanding  all  this,  the  prevalent  use 


The  Story  of  the  Creation  277 

of  the  name  of  Moses  in  connection  with  these 
chapters,  and  with  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  is 
perfectly  correct  and  proper,  fully  as  much  so  as 
the  universal  use  of  the  name  of  the  first  Emperor 
of  the  French  in  connection  with  the  Code  Napo- 
leon, even  though  the  latter  probably  contains  but 
little  from  the  pen  of  that  illustrious  personage. 
That  the  Pentateuch  contains  many  documents 
which  belong  to  the  Mosaic  period,  as  well  as  some 
that  are  probably  much  older,  cannot  be  a  matter 
of  reasonable  doubt.  That  as  a  whole  it  records 
and  reflects  the  spirit  and  doings  of  the  time  of 
Moses, — ^how  he  and  his  people  lived  and  thought 
and  worshiped  and  warred  and  sinned,  were 
pimished  and  repented,  and  how  after  sundry 
delays,  defeats,  failures,  disappointments,  and 
vicissitudes,  they  finally  attained  possession  of 
what  they  had  been  taught  to  regard  as  their 
ancestral  home — all  this  may  be  accepted  as 
veritable  Mosaic  history.  That  the  hero  of  that 
history,  or  the  man  who  made  the  histor>%  should 
have  the  honor  and  glory  and  earthly  immortality 
which  belong  to  or  accrue  from  a  faithful  record 
of  such  history,  is  no  more  than  his  due;  and  this 
for  the  further  reason  that  his  character  and  per- 
sonality are  indelibly  stamped  on  it  and  give  it  its 
chief  practical  value  through  all  succeeding  time. 


BIBLICAL  REVISION 

One  of  the  "signs  of  the  times"  is  a  steadily 
increasing  restlessness  over,  or  in  view  of,  the 
defects  in  our  authoritative  translations  of  the 
Bible — and  by  "authoritative"  I  refer  particularly 
to  the  versions  known  as  the  "Authorized"  or 
"King  James"  version,  and  the  "Revised." 
While  the  latter  is  a  great  improvement  over  the 
former,  it  fails  to  satisfy,  I  will  not  say  public 
demands,  but  rather  public  wants.  For  though 
there  is  little  or  no  public  clamor  on  the  subject, 
there  is  a  constantly  growing  indifference  or  neglect 
as  respects  the  matter  of  Bible-reading  and  Bible- 
study  on  the  part  of  both  the  real  and  the  nominal 
lay  adherents  of  the  Christian  faith.  Some  of  the 
causes  of  this  neglect  will  appear  as  we  proceed. 
But  the  neglect  itself  shows  that  there  is  in  the 
minds  of  people  of  that  class  a  manifest  feeling  of 
dissatisfaction  with  the  Book  itself  in  its  present 
rendering ;  and  consequently  there  is  a  real,  though 
perhaps  rarely  expressed,  want  of  something  better. 
This  dissatisfaction  is  distinctly  voiced  in  the 
growing  hostility  to  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  our 
public  schools.  Much  of  this  hostiHty  lacks 
sincerity,  and  much  of  it  is  partisan  in  character, 

278 


Biblical  Revision  279 

but  some  of  it  is  honest,  though  generally  based  on 
erroneous  considerations.  And  in  further  proof  of 
the  existence  of  this  dissatisfaction,  note  may  be 
made,  first,  of  the  steadily  increasing  number  of 
private  or  unauthorized  translations,  some  of 
which  are  not  translations  at  all,  but  free  and 
sometimes  ver}^  crude  paraphrases  of  the  original; 
and  secondly,  that  Biblical  teachers,  in  their  class- 
rooms, are  compelled  to  resort  to  their  own  trans- 
lations or  paraphrasing  methods  of  speech,  in 
order  to  bring  what  is  said  within  the  ready  com- 
prehension of  their  hearers. 

Now,  it  goes  without  saying  that  a  book  which 
is  intended  for  the  use  of  all  sorts  and  conditions 
of  men  and  women  and  children,  especially  where 
matters  of  life  and  death,  of  good  morals  here  and 
immortality  hereafter  are  involved — that  such  a 
book  shotild  have  at  least  the  following  among 
other  essential  characteristics : 

I.  The  intended  primary  meaning  of  what  it 
says  should  be  reasonably  clear  to  the  compre- 
hension of  the  average  lay  reader.  To  talk  to  a 
man  in  forms  of  speech  which  he  does  not  under- 
stand involves  a  waste  of  time  on  the  part  of  the 
speaker,  and  wearies  and  disgusts  the  hearer. 

To  illustrate:  The  phravse  "the  body  of  this 
death"  (Rom.  vii.,  24),  as  an  English  phrase,  is 
utterly  meaningless  to  the  average  layman.  The 
same  is  true  regarding  the  phrase  "the  mind  of  the 
flesh"  (Rom.  viii.,  6),  and  regarding  many  other 
expressions  that  appear  in  both  the  Authorized 


28o  Biblical  Revision 

and  Revised  versions.  It  is  no  part  of  my  present 
purpose  to  make  a  compilation  of  such  phrases; 
I  wish  only  to  call  attention  to  them. 

A  few  Greek  and  Hebrew  idioms  of  speech  are 
retained  with  some  resultant  obscurity,  due  to  the 
idioms  themselves,  where  the  actual  meaning 
could  be  equally  well  expressed  by  an  English 
phrase  of  equal  brevity  and  force.  Thus,  ''Thou 
hast  said"  (Matt,  xxvi.,  64)  might  better  read, 
*'It  is  as  you  say,"  or  "I  am."  "What  have  I  to 
do  with  thee?"  (John  ii.,  4)  might  well  be  changed 
to  ''What  is  that  to  me?  "  These  illustrations  might 
be  multiplied. 

2.  The  Bible,  for  the  use  of  English-speaking 
readers  of  the  present  day,  should,  in  respect  to 
sexual  matters,  conform  to  present  standards  of 
cleanness. 

The  fact  that  the  ancient  Jews,  along  with  the 
heathen  peoples  by  whom  they  were  surroimded, 
were  (if  judged  by  modem  standards)  unclean  of 
speech,  even  in  some  cases  down  to  the  uncleanness 
of  the  modem  barroom  and  brothel,  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  be  equally  unclean.  Such  things 
are  incompatible  with  the  purity  of  heart  of 
Matthew  v.,  8.  As  a  people,  we  have  outgrown 
that  comparatively  low  state  or  degree  of  civiliza- 
tion, but  we  have  retained  and  most  pertinaciously 
clung  to  the  sexual  filth  which  they,  in  their 
ignorance  or  under  their  peculiar  usages  of  speech, 
put  into  the  sacred  record.  It  is  time — ^high  time 
— ^that  we  had  a  clean  Bible.     On  this  point  I 


Biblical  Revision  281 

speak  advisedly;  and  any  man  who,  in  family 
worship,  having  sons  and  daughters  of  years  of 
discretion,  has  attempted  to  read  the  Bible 
through  in  course,  w411  not  need  to  ask  me  to  cite 
chapter  and  verse  in  order  to  make  good  what  I 
say. 

This  characteristic  of  our  present  Bible — by 
which  I  mean  the  freedom  and  coarseness  with 
w^hich  sexual  matters  are  mentioned,  especially  in 
the  Old  Testament,  though  occasionally  also  in  the 
New — is  more  of  a  hindrance  to  the  general  use 
of  the  Bible  than  most  of  our  religious  authorities 
imagine.  A  single  illustration  now  occurs  to  me. 
Not  very  long  ago,  I  happened  to  be  in  a  bookstore 
chatting  with  the  proprietor,  when  a  mutual  friend, 
a  business  man  of  wealth,  high  morals,  and  good 
standing,  but  of  no  religious  pretensions,  came  in 
and  asked  if  there  was  any  edition  of  the  Bible 
published  that  omitted  the  offensive  sensualism 
so  often  foimd  in  the  Old  Testament.  He  was  a 
bachelor  himself,  but  had  many  nephews  and  nieces 
just  coming  to  years  of  discretion,  and  he  wished  to 
buy  and  present  each  of  them  with  such  a  Bible. 
And  I  also  happen  to  know  of  cases  in  which  young 
boys  have,  without  any  improvement  to  their 
purity  of  heart,  amused  themselves  by  looking  up 
and  making  a  jest  of  erotic  phrases,  references,  and 
descriptions  which  were  not  needed  and  are  of  no 
value  for  the  purpose  of  religious  instruction  and 
growth  in  grace. 

As  to  the  authority  of  the  church  to  make  such 


282  Biblical  Revision 

omissions  from    the    Bible   record,  I  shall  have 
something  to  say  presently. 

3.  The  fact  that  fully  one  third  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  made  up  of  matter  which  is  of  no 
possible  interest,  concern,  or  benefit  to  anybody 
(except  the  antiquarian),  either  for  this  life  or  the 
next,  detracts  very  greatly  from  its  attractiveness, 
or  even  suitability,  for  general  reading. 

If  any  one  feels  inclined  to  doubt  the  accuracy 
of  this  statement,  let  him  read  the  Old  Testament 
in  course — the  whole  of  it — with  blue  pencil  in 
hand,  and  make  his  record  as  he  goes  along.  When 
he  gets  through  he  will  agree  with  me. 

Now,  if  revision  were  made  in  respect  of  only 
three  matters,  (i)  meaningless  and  obscure  render- 
ings, (2)  gross  sexual  references,  and  (3)  profitless 
details,  leaving  all  the  rest  of  the  Bible  as  it  now 
reads  in  the  "American  Standard  Edition"  of 
the  Revised  Version,  I  think  it  perfectly  clear  that 
we  should  have  a  Bible  equally  good  for  all  the 
purposes  of  religion,  and  a  great  deal  better  for 
general  and  devotional  reading  by  English-speaking 
men,  women,  and  children.  We  should  also  have  a 
Bible  against  which,  for  use  in  our  public  schools, 
much  less  could  be  said. 

The  efforts  of  private  revisers,  at  least  of  all 
whose  work  I  have  seen,  are  open  to  the  very 
serious,  if  not  fatal,  objection  that  they  have  re- 
vised too  much ;  that  is,  they  have  gone  far  ahead 
of  what  the  public  want.  The  poetic  beauty  and 
archaic  attractiveness  of  the  greater  part  of  the 


Biblical  Revision  283 

present  version  so  justly  appeal  to  the  average 
religious  taste  and  good  sense  of  people  at  large 
that  an  over-modernization  of  the  text  is  vigor- 
ously resented.  But  every  new  reviser,  having  set 
out  to  revise,  meastu-es  his  success  by  the  amount 
of  revising  he  does.  In  such  hands  the  good  and 
bad  suffer  alike  together;  and  hence,  in  every 
private  revision  I  have  seen,  the  remedy  of  the 
new  is  worse  than  the  disease  of  the  old.  Revision 
should  undoubtedly  be  made,  but  it  should  be 
made  slowly.  First,  obvious  and  material  defects 
should  be  corrected,  and  no  others;  the  Book,  as  so 
corrected,  should  be  tested  by  a  considerable  and 
prolonged  usage,  say  of  the  average  lifetime  of  a 
generation,  whereby  to  ascertain  (i)  whether  the 
corrections  thus  made  constitute  an  improvement 
in  public  apprehension,  and  (2)  if  they  do,  wherein 
and  how  can  the  rendering  be  ftu-ther  improved, 
so  as  the  better  to  adapt  it  to  the  religious  wants 
of  the  EngHsh-speaking  race. 

The  work  of  revision,  if  it  be  done  as  it  ought  to 
be  done,  is  not  the  work  of  a  day  or  a  year,  or  even 
of  a  single  generation.  In  no  case  should  the 
integrity  of  the  Bible  as  a  book  of  righteousness 
and  salvation  be  destroyed,  or  even  lessened  or 
impaired.  In  all  other  respects,  it  should  be 
made  to  conform  to  those  conditions  and  require- 
ments which  will  make  it  most  efficacious  for  the 
purposes  for  which  it  was  written;  and  in  order 
that  it  shall  be  most  highly  efficacious,  it  must  be 
so  revised  as  to  make  it  acceptable  to  all  who  have 


284  Biblical  Revision 

any  interest  in,  or  desire  a  knowledge  of,  its 
contents.  The  revision  completed  in  1885  was  a 
great  work,  ably  and  devoutly  done.  Use  has 
stamped  on  that  work  the  general  approval  of  the 
church.  But  that  revision  was  especially  devoted 
to  other  points  than  the  three  above  noted.  I 
humbly  submit,  but  only  as  the  opinion  of  a  not 
inattentive  layman,  that  the  scholars  of  the  Holy 
CathoHc  Church  ought  now  to  give  their  attention 
and  efforts  to  a  further  revision  whereby  (i)  to 
render  Hebrew  and  Greek  idioms  into  modern 
English ;  (2)  to  give  us  a  clean  Bible,  clean  on  every 
page;  and  (3)  to  eliminate  from  its  pages  such 
details  as  do  not  in  any  way,  shape,  or  manner 
concern  either  righteousness  in  this  life,  or  immor- 
tality^ in  the  next.  After  twenty  or  thirty  years, 
use  of  a  Bible  so  revised,  the  church  will  know 
better  what,  if  anything,  needs  doing  next  by  way 
of  still  further  revision. 

As  respects  any  general  revision  of  the  Bible  in 
the  direction  of  a  new  translation,  there  is  one 
obstacle  which  at  present,  I  think,  is  insuperable. 
Most  of  our  Biblical  scholars,  while  well  up  in 
Hebrew  and  Greek,  are  not  well  instructed  or 
thoroughly  skilled  in  the  niceties  of  English  speech. 
More  especially  is  this  the  case  in  respect  of  what 
we  call  classical,  as  distinguished  from  colloquial, 
English.  Such  masters  in  the  use  of  "English 
undefiled"  as  James  Russell  Lowell  and  Oliver 
Wendell  Holmes  are  not  to  be  found  among  our 
clergy — at  least  I  know  of  none;  and  only  a  man  so 


Biblical  Revision  285 

qualified  should  presume  to  think  of  improving 
(except  as  to  sundry  idioms  and  obsolete  words) 
the  magnificent  diction  of  the  greater  part  of  our 
present  revision.  Future  scholarship  may  supply 
men  thus  quaHfied,  but  just  now  they  are  exceed- 
ingly scarce.  I  feel  safe  in  saying  of  any  man  of 
the  present  generation  of  scholars  who  thinks  he 
can  make  a  better  general  translation  of  the  Bible 
than  the  one  we  now  have,  that  if  he  does  not 
thereby  betray  his  incompetence  for  the  work,  he 
at  least  shows  that  he  has  not  fully  "sized  up'* 
its  difficulties. 

In  making  these  suggestions,  I  am  perfectly 
aware  of  simdry  possible  counter-statements,  and 
particularly : 

(i)  That  any  alteration  in  the  text,  either  by 
addition  or  omission,  is  authoritatively  and  forever 
forbidden  by  Rev.  xxii.,  18,  19. 

But  the  word  ''book"  as  used  in  these  verses 
means  the  book  of  Revelation,  and  no  other.  A 
New  Testament  "book"  did  not  exist  at  that  time. 
All  existing  data  and  all  present-known  facts  fully 
justify  the  conclusion  that  our  New  Testament 
canon  was  not  made  up  or  compiled  into  a  single 
"book"  till  many  years  later.  And  it  further  ap- 
pears that  the  right  of  this  book  of  Revelation  to  be 
included  in  the  canon  at  all  was  in  serious  dispute 
among  the  leading  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  the 
church  till  near  the  end  of  the  second  or  the  begin- 
ning of  the  third  century.  Hence  this  particular 
■citation  is  not  relevant  to  the  point  in  question. 


286  Biblical  Revision 

(2)  Another  possible  reply  may  be  thus  stated ; 
The  Bible  as  we  have  it — the  whole  of  it — is  given 
to  us  by  divine  inspiration,  and  no  finite  or  human 
authority  is  empowered  either  to  add  to  or  sub- 
tract from  its  inspired  contents. 

If,  for  example,  Genesis  xxxviii.  is  thus  divinely 
inspired  as  an  authoritative  part  of  the  sacred 
record,  then  I  must  admit  the  sufficiency  of  this 
reply.  To  any  man  who  so  holds,  and  is  willing 
so  to  preach  and  teach,  my  suggestions  as  above 
given  are  impious  and  accordingly  should  be 
rejected.  But  it  pleases  me  to  believe  that  the 
Holy  Deity  specially  made  known  to  us  by  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  the  God  to  whom  purity  in  all  things 
on  the  part  of  His  followers  is  supremely  acceptable, 
cannot  be  honored,  but  is  grossly  dishonored  by  the 
ascription  to  Him  in  His  perfect  holiness,  of  any 
such  unholiness  as  this  chapter  contains.  Is  this 
heresy?  If  so,  then  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  a 
heretic  when  He  denounced  the  Mosaic  law  of 
marriage. 

There  are  a  few  other  matters  outside  of  a  new 
translation  that  might  be  profitably  considered  by 
those  to  whom,  in  any  event,  questions  of  Biblical 
revision  must  be  entrusted.  One  is  the  elimination 
of  duplicated  extracts  from  old  historical  records. 
Thus  in  Isaiah,  chapters  xxxvi-xxxviii.  (except 
xxxviii.,  9-22)  and  xxxix  are  a  repetition  of  the 
record  found  in  II.  Kings,  beginning  with  chap, 
xviii.,  13. 

Very  considerable  portions  of  Kings  and  Chroni- 


Biblical  Revision  287 

cles  are  made  up  of  duplicated  extracts  from  the 
ancient  records  of  the  kingdoms  of  Judah  and 
Israel,  all  of  which  are  as  unnecessary  and  as 
objectionable  as  to  have  two  copies  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  in  a  history  of  the  United 
States. 

The  same  is  true  of  some  of  the  Psalms.  Thus 
David's  thanksgiving  hymn  of  I.  Chronicles  xvi., 
8-36  reappears  in  two  or  three  of  the  Psalms 
(Ixxviii.,  43-68;  cv.,  1-15,  etc.),  where  it  is  divided 
up  into  sections,  probably  for  purposes  of  con- 
venience in  the  musical  services  of  the  Temple. 
As  the  reasons  for  such  division  no  longer  exist, 
at  least  outside  the  Jewish  synagogue,  and  as 
for  Christian  use  the  undivided  hymn  is  much  to 
be  preferred,  the  broken-up  sections  might  well 
be  omitted. 

Many  improvements  along  these  lines  might  be 
made  in  the  interest  of  the  general  reader,  without 
injury  or  loss  to  anybody — except  the  printer. 


INDEX 

PAGE 

Acts:  Early  Church  and  Empire 80 

Acts:  Paul  and  the  Empire 95 

Angels,  Agency  of i73 

Babel 259 

Baptism  for  the  Dead i77 

Bible,  Contents  of  the iii 

Biblical  Revision 278 

Civilization,  Beginnings  of 249 

Creation,  The  Story  of 269 

Deluge,  The 254 

Faith  Cure 183 

Fall:  The  Penalty 262 

Heaven 219 

Hell 227 

Immortality:  History  of  Doctrine 215 

Japhetic  Gospel,  A 59 

Jesus,  The  Earthly  Life  of   i 

Jesus,  The  Wisdom  of , 15 

John,  The  Gospel  of 116 

Lost  Beliefs i73 

Paul,  The  Gospel  of 45 

Paul,  The  Writings  of 28 

Paul  and  the  Empire 69 

Peter 130 

Protestantism,  Defects  of 158 

Rainbow-Promise 265 

Resurrection,  The:  History  of  Doctrine 215 

Resurrection,  The:  Origin  of  Doctrine 143 

Revelation:  A  Drama 190 

Satan 231 

Sin 240 

Traditions,  Three  Ancient 247 


289 


Theological  Seminary-Speer  Libr; 


1    1012  01130  5523 


